Some people attend because they don't like their chances of being away from the sacraments indefinitely.  To belittle this is an insidious charge.  If one thinks that he will be 'fine' without the sacraments or that God will provide, then fine-- I won't besmirch the man.  But if the man thinks that non-attendance is the only course of action when none of the above are present, I can't help but scoff.

I don't place judgment on the soul of a person who attends these Masses.  I am not competent to read into their consciences.  I simply look at it this way:

These priests are, objectively speaking, traitors!  Therefore, I refuse to unite in worship with them.

Ecclesia Militans  
Mithrandylan said:
Some people attend because they don't like their chances of being away from the sacraments indefinitely.  To belittle this is an insidious charge.  If one thinks that he will be 'fine' without the sacraments or that God will provide, then fine-- I won't besmirch the man.  But if the man thinks that non-attendance is the only course of action when none of the above are present, I can't help but scoff.

I don't place judgment on the soul of a person who attends these Masses.  I am not competent to read into their consciences.  I simply look at it this way:

These priests are, objectively speaking, traitors!  Therefore, I refuse to unite in worship with them.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At his talk in St. Mary's, Bishop Williamson said these priests have an obligation to speak out!
        For me, this is not a question of whether I'll be fine with or without the sacraments. This is not what it is  all about. Besides, in today's world you can somehow get to Mass once to fulfill your obigation.

This is a political justification, not a theological one.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I believe you come neatly to the point of dispute when you state "the SSPX as a whole is compromised."

I do not believe that.

So are you saying that the SSPX of today is not substantially different than the SSPX that we came to know and love?

To acknowledge substantial changes were made (or attempted to be made) is not to simultaneously preclude oneself from mass attendance at SSPX chapels.

The SSPX bishops and priests, adhering to the essential duties of the Church, were teaching the Faith and condemning errors against the same.  They were also refusing to place themselves under Modernist Rome and thereby avoiding placing the very same Faith in grave danger.  Today, the SSPX bishop and priests are gravely derelict in condemning errors in their own backyard.  They also fail to speak out against placing themselves under Modernist Rome, which is also being driven by their own superiors.  These are substantial changes.  If these changes don't preclude oneself from Mass attendance at SSPX chapels, then there should be no substantial reason for not attending a FSSP Mass.

Disagree:

1) One cannot attend indult masses because these communities officially acknowledge the doctrinal correctness of the v2 docuмents, which is against the faith;

2) It matters not what individual priests in these congregations believe;

3) What matters is the official stance of their communities;

4) Same with the SSPX;

5) Bishop Fellay made many scandalous comments, and even signed a docuмent which, in the most favorable light, would be an ambiguous statement on several doctrinal matters;

6) But it was not accepted, despite his desire it would be;

7) And therefore is not official policy;

8) Therefore, I am not precluded on the basis of a deal that didn't happen;

9) Combine this reality with the orthodoxy of faith preached at my SSPX chapel, and it becomes difficult to justify abstention on the pretext of the faith being in danger.

The essential mission of the Church is to teach the truth and condemn errors.

The SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre taught the truth and condemned errors.

The FSSP teaches some truth, teaches the errors of Vatican II as consonant with the truth, condemns some errors, and fails to condemn other errors.

The SSPX of Bishop Fellay teaches many truths, sometimes teaches the errors of Vatican II as consonant with the truth, condemns many errors, but fails to condemn the errors of its superiors.  In addition, they are willing to make a practical deal with Rome without Rome's conversion, which would place the truth in proximate danger.

The SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre fulfills both essential elements of the mission of the Church; the SSPX of Bishop Fellay is deficient in both essential elements (more in the lack of condemnation of error) of the mission of the Church.  Therefore, the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of Bishop Fellay are substantially different.    

I agree with your statement that making a merely practical accord with an unconverted Rome would place the purity of doctrine in proximate and persistent danger of contamination.

But that deal has not been struck, and based on the current events of the last week, is not likely to be struck any time soon.

My efforts concentrate on rewinding those measures which were imprudently implemented in Menzingen in preparation for the deal they though they were going to get.

I do not want to abandone the SSPX; I want to get it back to what it was.

I do not believe this is impossible, or not worth the effort.

I do not want to abandone the SSPX; I want to get it back to what it was.

I do not believe this is impossible, or not worth the effort.

The SSPX is toast, barring a miracle.  The priests have not shown themselves to be faithful sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, and most importantly, purveyors of the essential mission of the Church.  I would love things to be back to normal, but I just cannot see it happening so long as Bishop Fellay and his right hand men remain in power.  The SSPX priests are gravely accountable for the current status of the SSPX.  I really believe that the best you can do for the SSPX at this point is to abandon the chapels.  Maybe then the priests will wake up.  So long as you continue attending, the alarm level won't rise above "mild".

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I do not want to abandone the SSPX; I want to get it back to what it was.

I do not believe this is impossible, or not worth the effort.

The SSPX is toast, barring a miracle.  The priests have not shown themselves to be faithful sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, and most importantly, purveyors of the essential mission of the Church.  I would love things to be back to normal, but I just cannot see it happening so long as Bishop Fellay and his right hand men remain in power.  The SSPX priests are gravely accountable for the current status of the SSPX.  I really believe that the best you can do for the SSPX at this point is to abandon the chapels.  Maybe then the priests will wake up.  So long as you continue attending, the alarm level won't rise above "mild".

Or perhaps at the very least, just don't put money in the plate. If they stop receiving money, they'll have to make some changes or else they're toast.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I do not want to abandone the SSPX

I'm not a "red-lighter",....

You should be for the reasons I have given throughout this thread.

I understand your reasons, and I do agree that the average Neo-SSPX chapel can be extremely dangerous to attend because of their pacifism. I'm actually a bit more opposed to attendance at their chapels than I originally was.

However, for those who want to receive the Sacraments, and for those who aren't attending a liberal parish, I wouldn't totally object so long as they don't give money.

Rewind - Letter of Fr. Cardozo to Silent Priests:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11667

Your question carries within it its own internal contradiction:

Since the fssp does not believe the v2 docs to contain errors, it is not possible to attend a mass in which the integral faith is upheld.

Look, Sean. Father Bolduc told us not to go there for multiple reasons, including the fact that an intrinsically evil act is going on there DAILY. The "Latin mass" is being allowed to co-exist with the Novus Ordo at that ICK mass, and I will not go there until that stops. Also, there are novelties being done at this church, and the people that go there are hodge podge about their Faith. Some see no difference (and believe me, I lost a "friend" of 19 years over this) between the "Latin mass" and the Novus Ordo, yet they go there. Also the women are mixed with the head coverings, some outright refuse to wear them. There is no combat against the Novus Ordo, and there was a "mass" where women were "presiding" going on there (I personally know eye witnesses to this atrocity.)
Also, do you REALLY know if the host you're getting is one from the "Latin mass" or one from the Novus Ordo? I don't, and all I have is the word of the priest, whom I don't trust anyway.

Fr. Bolduc told us that the Diocese would have recognized what he did if ONLY he would say ONE NOVUS ORDO! And he WOULD NOT COMPROMISE and do that. How many ICK priests have done this, and concelebrated Novus Ordo masses to be able to be "approved" by the Diocese? Probably every single one of them. So don't tell me I'm committing some kind of sin by not going to Fr. Themann's church and the ICK masses. Also, Fr. Themann accused my mother of interpreting Quo Primum "according to Mrs. ____ " Yeah, okay, Father. We were interpreting it according to what it SAID, not what HE wants it to say. He's saying "well some of it is disciplinary and some of it is dogmatic." Well that's not the way Father Bolduc taught us what that docuмent meant. As far as I'm concerned, he's misinterpreting an apostolic bull, which makes me wonder whether he's a heretic or not (forgive me for saying so, but what else can I deduce from that kind of reasoning?!)

So until the neo- SSPX is gone, or some miraculous thing happens where the ICK stops having the Novus Ordo said at their chapel on the Diocese grounds, then no, I'm not compromising going to EITHER ONE of them. Both of them, as far as I'm concerned, are being done in a displeasing way to God.