[Stanley N]

St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.

I'll take your word for it that neither of them ever preach against V2 errors. You probably know better than I do.

But I haven't said anything against some heresies in a long while. Doesn't mean I accept them.

[claudel]

St Thomas More said: "Silence gives consent." …

The quoted sentence is a sorry example of what results when someone gets his knowledge, what little there is of it, from movies.

The plain fact is that "silence gives consent" is a principle in English common law,* not in morals, theology, or any other category remotely relevant to the present discussion. From Pax Vobis's distasteful assumption otherwise, it would necessarily follow that everyone here who does not repeatedly assert his disapproval of murder, rape, or poor personal hygiene is suspect of being at least sympathetic to it.
___________
*Or at least it was in St. Thomas's time, although then, as it still does now, principle yielded to power with tedious regularity.

[Pax Vobis]

Silence is one of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin, and is part of the moral law.  You can ignore the St Thomas quote; doesn’t change anything. 

[claudel]

Silence is one of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin, and is part of the moral law.  You can ignore the St Thomas quote; doesn’t change anything.

If the quote can be ignored, as indeed it can, what is your excuse for using it to cudgel other commenters?

Moreover, your implication that silence's sole or primary function is as "an accessory to sin" is disingenuous—that being the politest thing to be said for it. Should we look forward to seeing you declare that you have renounced using a knife to cut your food because knives are used to kill?

[Pax Vobis]

Not all silence is bad; never said it was.  Silence in denouncing error is bad.  The new-sspx practices this type of silence.  The FSSP has always practiced it.  

[Nishant Xavier]

No, Mr. X, I am not offended by any honest but mistaken claims. But given the haughty tone you adopt, you may want to reread Proverbs 16:18 in your Bible, and meditate on why Sacred Scripture says, "Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall." and why the Mother of God says, "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." (Luk 1:52)

Here's a simple one line challenge to any Resistance person: Prove that the SSPX denies even one doctrine or dogma of Faith. If you could do this, you would not need 101 non sequiturs. It is incredible that some of you, absurdly, have gone so far as to attack the SSPX as heretics, and in light of "silence is consent", presumably those who were "silent" after Pax Vobis posted that "consent".

This challenge is especially to you, Pax Vobis, since you have no scruple in making an accusation that is calumny and slander: that SSPX Traditional Catholic Priests are allegedly heretics. Name the Dogma of Faith that they allegedly deny.

Pax claimed, "Much like the early Anglicans under King Henry VIII who had the same liturgy as true catholics but yet were heretics by rejecting the pope, the FSSP and the SSPX appear traditional in their liturgy, but are heretics for accepting the heresies of V2 and the new mass."

First: If someone becomes a heretic for rejecting the Pope (why didn't you say, Anglicans were heretics for denying the dogmas of (1) Transubstantiation, (2) the Real Presence, (3) the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass, (4) Purgatory etc - maybe you meant (5) dogma of the Papacy?), then sedes are in greatest danger of becoming heretics. Yet you have fallen for that danger yourself, rejecting 6 Popes for 60+ years as having no authority.

Second, name the Dogma of Faith that is allegedly being denied by the Society. When someone denies a Dogma, it will be very clear. Arians denied the Dogma of the Divinity of Christ. Orthodox deny the Dogma of the Filioque. Name the Dogma.

To say a Society that swears by and would die for the Oath against Modernism has gone Modernist is a false accusation. It is like saying those who are would be ready to die to keep the Dogma defined at Nicaea even unto death have allegedly gone Arian.

I debated whether or not to respond to X's Haughty Post; I do so only for the sake of completion. Lest "silence be consent".

1) Apologia was written in the 1970s, and has no bearing on ABLF’s condemnation of the indult groups which arise 15 years later;

15 years later? Do you want to advertise the fact that you have neither read the book nor done due diligence on your claims? Even a cursory flip through the book in the SSPX Asia link I gave you would reveal for e.g. a Chapter, like Chapter 11, The Ordinations of 29 June 1976. In fact, the foreword to Volume 1 was written and the book was published by Angelus Press in the year 1979. Volume 2 was published by Angelus Press in 1983. 15 years later? You may want to check your math, Mr. X.

4) As regards par. 8, again, why are you quoting this to me?  You should be quoting this to Menzingen, since it is they who seem to fear for their canonical status and being perceived as schismatic.

Go back and reread your post which is reply #39 on this thread. Among many other absurdities, you claimed the SSPX now has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". That's why I showed you an article from the SSPX's own website that proved otherwise.

Your statement that I should "be quoting this to Menzingen" is just transparent debate rhetoric. SSPX Authorities obviously approved the article, seeing that it was on the SSPX site. The authorities quoted there explained the theology that I alluded to.

I have no interest in debating for the sake of debating. I don't intend to and won't dedicate the rest of my life to a fraternity I believe is not doing God's Will, let alone allegedly actively opposing it for some human motive. The SSPX is not like what is alleged here at all. I see signal graces and obvious divine fruits in the Society every other week. I could tell some from my own experience. But what Bp. Fellay has publicly said - of the Catholic praying to Our Lady of Gaudalupe led to the SSPX - should be enough. You are obviously committed to your Resistance cause. I bear you no grudge and I wish you well. This will be my last post on CI for a while.

Fare well, X. I will pray for you, and all here on CI. Time will tell who is right. I'll leave this post for posterity. In 10 years, here's what I expect: (1) the SSPX will have over 1000 Priests, (2) every elected Superior General of the Society will take the Oath against Modernism (3) and despite some of you minimizing the importance of the TLM in keeping the Faith, lex orandi,lex credendi, the SSPX will continue offering the TLM exclusively.

Thus, all dangers will be removed; the danger of falling into (i) doctrinal or (ii) liturgical modernism; and (iii) that of not taking the duty of Catholic Restoration seriously. Writing continuous polemics against the Society's Work, I should remind some of you, really does nothing to further the goal of Catholic Restoration, either in Rome or the wider Church. This kind of "Tradition" risks becoming an exercise in self-justification rather than an apostolate undertaken for love of God and for souls.

Instead, the SSPX will continue to serve God faithfully, and by the Grace of God, we hope, will help millions more souls go to Heaven. If I am mistaken on (1) or (2) or (3), I will make it a point to return here and retract. Can any Resistance person make a similar prediction? Some have claimed Priests of the SSPX will begin to offer the New Mass soon. Those who rebelled against +ABL to start the SSPV claimed this in 1983 (+ABL mentioned it in a sermon that year), it was wrong then and 36 years have proved it to be still wrong to claim that. Some Resistants claimed it after 2012, it still has not come to pass.

Will it ever? No, by the Grace of God, we pray it will not. The SSPX is true to the Faith, to the Mass, and to the Church. We know Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society were chosen by God from the beginning and hope, by His Grace, to persevere till the end.

[Mega-fin]

XavierSam, I’m not sure that you see the Resistance for what it is. The FSSP teaches St Thomas Aquinas in their seminaries and says the Latin Mass. And yet, the SSPX of old and Archbishop Lefebvre denounced them as traitors, because they are. They want the conciliar bishops, as the SSPX now does, they think that they need the bishops approval, the approval of the conciliar popes. They have put themselves under the bishops and they have their hands tied. How much better would it fair for the Society? Do we really expect the bishops to leave them alone? In the acts of the General chapter, it mentioned freedom from the bishops as far as possible, whatever does THAT mean? As far as possible? So the bishop wants to say Mass at a Society church, could they, would they say no? Would they allow the bishop that they have achieved “full Communion” with the say Mass? In England, they just had the heretic bishop who prays with Muslims to say the Rosary with the children who in turn thanked him for his visit with a spiritual bouquet, not for his conversion! And the priest tells the children, he’s a nice man, not a bad bishop. He says the new Mass gives Communion in the hand, preaches V2! This is the problem, not that they say anything heretical, but as they no longer denounce error, that is the real danger.
These are docuмented changes that have happened, and whether or not it’s heresy isn’t the point here. The Society has turned its back on their founder who gave them the clear and concise view: no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. But that isn’t necessary, we don’t need to wait for Rome to convert, they will recognize us! But will we recognize Rome? Rome is irregular, not tradition. The only agreement that needs to happen is for Rome to return to the faith, NOT the Society. But tell a man he’s irregular and he has to sort out the irregularity. The SSPX has been gas lighted and fallen hook line and sinker. We’re irregular because the Pope doesn’t formally recognize us! Oh my! No the problem is the Pope doesn’t recognize the Catholic faith which we are bound by God under pain of loosing our immortal soul to keep. 

[Mega-fin]

But, if you want to talk doctrine, let’s talk doctrine. What makes us Catholic? Three things:

1. The Catholic Faith
2. The Catholic Sacraments
3. The Catholic Hierarchy

Yes. The hierarchy is in the list, but it’s number three. And number three doesn’t have number one, and only doubtfully number two, so can those who occupy the places of number three really be Catholic?

We remove ourselves from the Catholic Faith three ways:

1. Heresy
2. Schism 
3. Apostasy

Where is conciliar Rome innocent in this list? They’re not.

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

[hollingsworth]

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

Tough words from the SSPX founder over thirty years ago. So has anything changed in those 30 years? Because doubtlessly, SSPX seeks rapprochement with Rome. That’s what the ‘re-branding’ was all about. That’s what GREC was all about. Obviously, SSPX is still in serious negotiations with Rome, even as we write. Clearly, the Hounder affair indicates SSPX willingness to make a Roman bishop part of their establishment. Indisputably, SSPX has allowed diocesan bishops to approve and participate in the sacramental life of the Society. +Fellay’s opposition to the publication of 219 of ++Lefebvre’s early sermons proves to my satisfaction that Fellay & Co. do not want those sermons to in any way influence the present Rome-ward course which the Society has set.

Don’t blame me and others for growing a bit impatient over the endless diatribes of the likes of Xavier Sem and X, though both seem to occupy opposite ends on the discussion spectrum. The fact is, ++Lefebvre summarized the situation in a few pithy sentences in 1987. We don’t need reams and reams of additional written material in order to somehow adjust our thinking about the real situation. We know what it is already. ++Lefebvre explained unequivocally what it was years ago. Nothing has changed. (And besides the quote above, one can easily find several others from ABL which match it.)

[Mega-fin]

Tough words from the SSPX founder over thirty years ago. So has anything changed in those 30 years? Because doubtlessly, SSPX seeks rapprochement with Rome. That’s what the ‘re-branding’ was all about. That’s what GREC was all about. Obviously, SSPX is still in serious negotiations with Rome, even as we write. Clearly, the Hounder affair indicates SSPX willingness to make a Roman bishop part of their establishment. Indisputably, SSPX has allowed diocesan bishops to approve and participate in the sacramental life of the Society. +Fellay’s opposition to the publication of 219 of ++Lefebvre’s early sermons proves to my satisfaction that Fellay & Co. do not want those sermons to in any way influence the present Rome-ward course which the Society has set.

Don’t blame me and others for growing a bit impatient over the endless diatribes of the likes of Xavier Sem and X, though both seem to occupy opposite ends on the discussion spectrum. The fact is, ++Lefebvre summarized the situation in a few pithy sentences in 1987. We don’t need reams and reams of additional written material in order to somehow adjust our thinking about the real situation. We know what it is already. ++Lefebvre explained unequivocally what it was years ago. Nothing has changed. (And besides the quote above, one can easily find several others from ABL which match it.)

theres quite a few, especially the one year after the consecrations, two years after the consecrations and his last interview in Fidelitier. 

[hollingsworth]

Mega: (There are quite a few,) especially the one year after the consecrations, two years after the consecrations and his last interview in Fidelitier.

Yeah, we know.  So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into endless discussions about it?
This is not the SSPX, which was under the leadership of its founder, Marcel Lefebvre?  We all know what it was, and why the Society was established in the beginning?  We should all know this, and should simply admit and acknowledge that the Society today is not what it was yesterday.  The original mission has been all but abandoned.  SSPX is a pretty wealthy, religious corporation, with lots of physical and financial assets, whose real allegiance is not to the Catholic faithful, but in all likelihood, to the Rothchilds.  This to me is just basic Neo-SSPX 101.  

[SeanJohnson]

Yeah, we know.  So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into endless discussions about it?
This is not the SSPX, which was under the leadership of its founder, Marcel Lefebvre?  We all know what it was, and why the Society was established in the beginning?  We should all know this, and should simply admit and acknowledge that the Society today is not what it was yesterday.  The original mission has been all but abandoned.  SSPX is a pretty wealthy, religious corporation, with lots of physical and financial assets, whose real allegiance is not to the Catholic faithful, but in all likelihood, to the Rothchilds.  This to me is just basic Neo-SSPX 101.  

Howlingsworth-

Please stifle these long diatribes.  I could only make it 1/3 of the way through it.  We all know about the Jєωs.  We don't need endless discussion of it.  Someone get me a glass of water.

:baby: