Author Topic: SSPX doubts? (Read 2511 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** October 18, 2013, 07:49:39 PM »

Only doubts? JP2 presided over the biggest disaster in Church history after the protestant revolt and they only have doubts???

SSPX doubts

I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

Marsha

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2013, 08:07:44 PM »

Traditio showed a picture of a seeming apparition of the image of JP II, hunched over...one hand raised, in flames...Deep in Purgatory?

Marlelar · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:16:57 PM »

I read the article in its entirety - three times.

Marsha

Machabees · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:25:34 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Only doubts? JP2 presided over the biggest disaster in Church history after the protestant revolt and they only have doubts???

SSPX doubts

I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

Marsha

Yes, the n-sspx may use the word "doubt" as a re-branding technique; however, with their proven compromises lately of the Traditional Faith to the modernists, I believe the n-sspx has lost the objectivity and sanity of the Faith and had dropped off into "doubt-land". If you are not faithful to the Faith, you begin to lose it; resulting into an empty shell.

So what is next for the n-sspx?

Singing guitars and ecuмenical consecrations...

Oh, wait, the n-sspx already did that in Euorpe. Remember the guitar mass some one had posted here, and the celebrated use of a Novus Ordo Bishop using a SSPX church, as with, the sspx Prior in Florida inviting his sspx faithful to go to the Diocesan Bishop's N.O. liturgical gathering he was having in Florida?

Yes, for the pro-apologists for +Fellay, like Johnnier, as you wish, you do have a free will to go to sleep. Though, not wise.

Machabees · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:40:05 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Marlelar
Only doubts? JP2 presided over the biggest disaster in Church history after the protestant revolt and they only have doubts???

SSPX doubts

I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

Marsha

Yes, the n-sspx may use the word "doubt" as a re-branding technique; however, with their proven compromises lately of the Traditional Faith to the modernists, I believe the n-sspx has lost the objectivity and sanity of the Faith and had dropped off into "doubt-land". If you are not faithful to the Faith, you begin to lose it; resulting into an empty shell.

So what is next for the n-sspx?

Singing guitars and ecuмenical consecrations...

Oh, wait, the n-sspx already did that in Euorpe. Remember the guitar mass some one had posted here, and the celebrated use of a Novus Ordo Bishop using a SSPX church, as with, the sspx Prior in Florida inviting his sspx faithful to go to the Diocesan Bishop's N.O. liturgical gathering he was having in Florida?

Yes, for the pro-apologists for +Fellay, like Johnnier, as you wish, you do have a free will to go to sleep. Though, not wise.

sspx.org: "Canonization doubts for John XXIII & John Paul II"

Let me make this more clear for the Johnnier types.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DOUBT" IN THE MATTER. John XXIII & John Paul II WERE OPEN ENEMIES TO THE FAITH! Using Bishop Fellay's own theatrical words "What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!"

No "doubts" in that; that is clear!

So wake-up from your slumber...

Azul · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:43:27 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Marlelar
Only doubts? JP2 presided over the biggest disaster in Church history after the protestant revolt and they only have doubts???

SSPX doubts

I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

Marsha

Yes, the n-sspx may use the word "doubt" as a re-branding technique; however, with their proven compromises lately of the Traditional Faith to the modernists, I believe the n-sspx has lost the objectivity and sanity of the Faith and had dropped off into "doubt-land". If you are not faithful to the Faith, you begin to lose it; resulting into an empty shell.

So what is next for the n-sspx?

Singing guitars and ecuмenical consecrations...

Oh, wait, the n-sspx already did that in Euorpe. Remember the guitar mass some one had posted here, and the celebrated use of a Novus Ordo Bishop using a SSPX church, as with, the sspx Prior in Florida inviting his sspx faithful to go to the Diocesan Bishop's N.O. liturgical gathering he was having in Florida?

Yes, for the pro-apologists for +Fellay, like Johnnier, as you wish, you do have a free will to go to sleep. Though, not wise.

Let me make this more clear for the Johnnier types.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DOUBT" IN THE MATTER. John XXIII & John Paul II WERE OPEN ENEMIES TO THE FAITH! Using Bishop Fellay's own theatrical words "What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!"

No "doubts" in that; that is clear!

Period!

While there can be doubts as to the destination of a soul, no one can know with certainty where that soul has gone. Therefore, "doubts" is appropriate.

Machabees · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:53:42 PM »

Quote from: Azul

While there can be doubts as to the destination of a soul, no one can know with certainty where that soul has gone. Therefore, "doubts" is appropriate.

Azul,

While the first part of what you had written is very true. The word "doubts" is not appropriate when sspx.org is using it in context of their article to mean the "doubt" of whether John XXIII & John Paul II should get Canonized or not. This is a big difference from the usage you are referring to in your post.

There is no such thing as a "doubt" in the matter; the Catholic answer is simply NO!

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:38:47 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Only doubts? JP2 presided over the biggest disaster in Church history after the protestant revolt and they only have doubts???

SSPX doubts

I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

Marsha

What about the frequent flyer miles???

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:49:34 AM »

How do you account for the miraculous healings that were certified?

B from A · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:19:07 AM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Quote from: Marlelar
... I have not read of any convincing evidence to support the idea that JP2 got an express ticket to heaven.

What about the frequent flyer miles???

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2013, 07:33:17 AM »

Quote from: poche

How do you account for the miraculous healings that were certified?

They weren't miracles.

The person could have healed on their own, or medicine/science could have been responsible. Or fraud -- the person might not have had the disease.

Before Vatican II, when they certified a miracle it was something beyond explanation -- and a verifiable miracle. Today, who knows.

They also used to have a Devil's Advocate, a special priest in charge of coming up with the "cons" of a person's canonization. Arguing against a person's canonization, or arguing "the devil's side" as it were. The Newchurch has done away with this. That alone makes NewCanonizations suspicious.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2013, 07:44:19 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: poche
How do you account for the miraculous healings that were certified?

They weren't miracles.

The person could have healed on their own, or medicine/science could have been responsible. Or fraud -- the person might not have had the disease.

Before Vatican II, when they certified a miracle it was something beyond explanation -- and a verifiable miracle. Today, who knows.

They also used to have a Devil's Advocate, a special priest in charge of coming up with the "cons" of a person's canonization. Arguing against a person's canonization, or arguing "the devil's side" as it were. The Newchurch has done away with this. That alone makes NewCanonizations suspicious.

It would make old canonizations suspicious, too. Devil's advocate was only established in the late 1500's. For most of Church history, there was no Devil's advocate.

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2013, 07:52:16 AM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

Traditio showed a picture of a seeming apparition of the image of JP II, hunched over...one hand raised, in flames...Deep in Purgatory?

Traditio suggested that meant that Pope John Paul II was in Hell. Maybe both we and Fr. Morrison should leave judgments like that to a perfectly just and merciful God and worry about our own salvation.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2013, 07:55:08 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: poche
How do you account for the miraculous healings that were certified?

They weren't miracles.

The person could have healed on their own, or medicine/science could have been responsible. Or fraud -- the person might not have had the disease.

Before Vatican II, when they certified a miracle it was something beyond explanation -- and a verifiable miracle. Today, who knows.

They also used to have a Devil's Advocate, a special priest in charge of coming up with the "cons" of a person's canonization. Arguing against a person's canonization, or arguing "the devil's side" as it were. The Newchurch has done away with this. That alone makes NewCanonizations suspicious.

I think John Paul II was pope and "NewChruch" is the Church of Christ, but Matthew is absolutely right here.

I am a bit surprised to see him using Traditio-speak like NewChurch, however. :wink:

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2013, 08:08:35 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: poche
How do you account for the miraculous healings that were certified?

They weren't miracles.

The person could have healed on their own, or medicine/science could have been responsible. Or fraud -- the person might not have had the disease.

Before Vatican II, when they certified a miracle it was something beyond explanation -- and a verifiable miracle. Today, who knows.

They also used to have a Devil's Advocate, a special priest in charge of coming up with the "cons" of a person's canonization. Arguing against a person's canonization, or arguing "the devil's side" as it were. The Newchurch has done away with this. That alone makes NewCanonizations suspicious.

Yes, and as I remember, all contrary evidence was suppressed and not accepted into the cause.