Author Topic: SSPX Communique after meeting of all Superiors (Read 25292 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #75 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:06:37 PM »

Quote from: bishopcharriere

Quote from: nctradcath
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.

Condescending... Like, maybe calling the Holy Father "Frankie"?

I don't agree with this neo-SSPX stooge "bishopcharriere" about the SSPX and the Resistance, but I do agree with him on this point.

How can you talk about condescension in the same short paragraph you refer to Pope Francis as "Frankie"?

You've been reading too much Traditio. See why I don't like that site?

You give the Resistance a bad name in this matter. Superficial readers of CathInfo will pounce on your post and consider it "the average" or typical of what is found here -- even though it's almost unique because of its disrespect for the Pope.

A man who is clearly OK with the neo-SSPX (just look at his other 3 posts and his whole account) just got a thumbs up (so far) on the oldest and original Resistance forum -- because of your indiscretion here.

bishopcharriere · « **Reply #76 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:18:25 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: bishopcharriere
Quote from: nctradcath
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.

Condescending... Like, maybe calling the Holy Father "Frankie"?

I don't agree with this neo-SSPX stooge "bishopcharriere" about the SSPX and the Resistance, but I do agree with him on this point.

"Stooge"? Charity is hard at work in this thread.

Matthew · « **Reply #77 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:25:27 PM »

Quote from: bishopcharriere

"Stooge"? Charity is hard at work in this thread.

Yes, it certainly is. I am practicing the spiritual work of mercy, "Instruct the ignorant".

Charity doesn't mean you can't criticize someone. "Stooge" is hardly a swear word proving the absence of charity.

I consider you a "useful tool" of the neo-SSPX. I believe you are Catholic, I have no idea of the state of your soul, but I do know with certainty that you are wrong about the Resistance and the neo-SSPX.

I am allowed to criticize those in error on my own forum, within the bounds of Catholic charity.

Matthew · « **Reply #78 on:** July 06, 2016, 07:17:25 PM »

I don't have time for hecklers and trolls.

"bishopcharriere" has been banned.

And he needs to look in the mirror regarding the "objective vs. subjective" truth issue.

Actually, here's the thing --

God hasn't revealed who is "objectively correct" about how to deal with the Crisis in the Church.

It could be the Resistance
It could be the sedevacantists
and moving on to the ones that aren't likely at all...
It could be the home aloners
It could be the Indult

But it *couldn't* be the neo-SSPX. At least they couldn't have been correct for all the years from 1970 - 2016.

Why am I so certain of that?

Because they contradict themselves! How could the neo-SSPX be the correct position, when their own position has changed over the years! They have no coherent position.
The neo-SSPX, back when it was the SSPX, defended the consecration of 4 bishops illicitly by Archbishop Lefebvre without the permission of Rome.

But today, as the neo-SSPX, they condemn the same kinds of emergency "for the sake of Tradition" episcopal consecrations, under the same circuмstances. For example, the consecrations of Bishop Faure and Bishop Thomas Aquinas.

So even if they were objectively correct today (because, for the sake of argument, we're going to assume that the Indult/approved by Rome route is "God's own choice" for what we should do in this Crisis), they were wrong from 1970 - 2012.

And here's the clincher -- since they haven't repented of their "wicked schismatic past", they wouldn't be in the right today either! You can't just jump over to the "correct" position without any announcements, penance, repentance, or restitution for your past sins/mistakes.

So even if they were objectively correct today, they are still "in the wrong" because they haven't even publicly confessed their past guilt, much less made up for it yet. On the contrary, they continue to pay half-hearted lip service to Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX.

They are like Judas: Considered lousy by the Jews (for being so close to Jesus Christ) and a lousy Apostle (for betraying the Master). The SSPX is a lousy Trad group (for making so many compromises) and a lousy Indult group (for failing to criticize their own "schismatic" past).

The neo-SSPX is like a hypothetical Android tablet produced by Apple. The Android lovers hate it because it's so expensive and produced by Apple, and the Apple lovers hate it because it runs the "inferior" Android OS.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #79 on:** July 06, 2016, 08:39:25 PM »

Quote

The neo-SSPX is like a hypothetical Android tablet produced by Apple.

Finally, language today's youth can understand.