Author Topic: SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope  (Read 8026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21091
  • Reputation: +18636/-108
  • Gender: Male
SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
« on: July 14, 2015, 05:43:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the "SSPX Faithful" Facebook group.
    Vanessa Dredger is one of the Admins.

    Vanessa Dredger
    June 20 at 2:30pm · Union, KY

    No further posts concerning the Pope's encyclical "Laudato Si" will be allowed on this page until further notice. An exception will be made for any posts on this topic from the SSPX website. This topic has been sufficiently discussed and moderated in previous posts below, which you may read through if you wish to join the conversation. As always, any flippant remarks will be immediately deleted.

    Vanessa Dredger: Though your assumption that I have not read the complete encyclical from cover to cover is true: I've only read parts of it. I've been busy curtailing the flagrant dissension over it. I will say at as an admin of this page I have no more restraint in me to keep myself from taking action upon those who cannot follow the rules here. I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained. I will no longer babysit you as you sit and make this situation worse than it needs to be.



    What exactly is "rampant" dissent? Lots of people being upset about something?
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1406
    • Reputation: +2074/-14
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #1 on: July 14, 2015, 06:02:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, we mustn't have "dissent" when it concerns Francis. Does Ms. Dredger also wear pink, use a blow comb, and go on cruise ship "retreats?"
    "Kindness is for fools! They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity. It is a struggle, a duel." -- Pope St. Pius X


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3577
    • Reputation: +3514/-224
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #2 on: July 14, 2015, 07:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the logical extension of the new Menzingen orientation which started out a few years back. They may have the windowshades drawn in the back seats  so as not to seen, but make no mistake they are already riding the conciliar bus. The one with Francisco Cramden in the driver's seat.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13949
    • Reputation: +7109/-2204
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #3 on: July 15, 2015, 08:39:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vanessa Dredger
    I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained.


    Well, this statement is actually quite true.  RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION is owed to all Encyclical Letters of the Vicar of Christ.  Religious Submission does at the very least rule out "rampant dissent" and requires "respect and honor of the position of the pope".  She has this ABSOLUTELY right.  What's at issue is whether Francis is certainly a legitimate Vicar of Christ.  If you're dogmatic R&R and entertain no doubt whatsoever about the legitimacy of Francis, then Vanessa's position is in fact the ONLY Catholic position.

    I defy anyone here to demonstrated any Church Father, Doctor, or approved theologian EVER in the entire history of the Church who has stated that Catholics can sit around "ripping" a papal encyclical.  What does that do to the Catholic Church?  It's at that point where R&R becomes absolutely pernicious and harmful to the faith.

    Bishop Fellay is in fact acting consistently with a dogmatic sedeplenist stance.  If you absolutely have no doubt that Francis is the pope and believe it to be true with the certainty of faith, then you absolutely must try to find a way to get into submission with him and you MUST at the very least RESPECT his Magisterium, attempting to the absolute best of your ability to apply a hermeneutic of continuity to it.

    So the more that the Resistance wishes to remain dogmatic sedeplenist, the more and more it departs from Catholicism.

    And this tension here between +Fellay SSPX and the Resistance is nothing other than an expression of the tension naturally caused by this decidedly non-Catholic notion that one can recognize someone as a Vicar of Christ and then absolutely blow him off, disrespect him, and criticize him at every turn ... the same tension that over the years has CONSTANTLY been trying to resolve itself either into some form of union with and submission to Rome or else to sedevacantism.  That dogmatic R&R position is abhorrent to Catholicsim and NOT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE.  And the more you start thinking that this is even remotely acceptable, the more of a sectarian Protestant / Old Catholic / Gallican you turn into.  I'm sorry, but that's a simple fact.

    Father Chazal articulated a position on the papacy which mirrors my own ... somewhere along the spectrum of sedeprivationism.  Something along those lines is absolutely necessary to maintain any objection whatsoever to the +Fellay position.  [I'm not talking about ancillary issues such as +Fellay's persecution of dissenters, etc., but just about the position itself.]  Archbishop Lefebvre publicly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes.  Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier have also acknowledge the possibility of vacancy.  WITHOUT THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, +Fellay's position is in fact the only Catholic one.



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13949
    • Reputation: +7109/-2204
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #4 on: July 15, 2015, 08:41:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I invite all of those sincerely seeking Catholic truth to read Monsignor Fenton's The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals:

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21091
    • Reputation: +18636/-108
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #5 on: July 15, 2015, 09:55:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus,

    You could replace "Papal encyclical" with "Pope" and we could have the same discussion -- it's the classic "To be Sede or not to be Sede" argument.

    Of course Catholics don't normally "rip" an encyclical -- or a Pope for that matter. But we're in a unique situation where the Pope -- the principle of unity -- has become a revolutionary and a principle of DISunity and a principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith. He has worked tirelessly to DESTROY the Catholic Church from within.

    To me, it goes without saying that "dogmatic sedeplenism" is an error in this Crisis. No one has received from God the assurance that the recent popes are even popes. Of course, the Sedevacntists also can't be dogmatic, since God hasn't told anyone that the recent popes are NOT popes. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly entertained the possibility, but for various reasons did not take the step of becoming sedevacantist.

    It rings true for me that Catholics only have to keep the Faith. I don't see it as self-evident that we laymen must figure out a solution to this Crisis. That's ludicrous. It sounds much more likely and truthful to me that God will solve the problem in His good time. What we MUST do, however, is withdraw ourselves from the wanton destruction (leave the conciliar structures) and keep our Faith -- since this might take a while (so far, it's taken 45 years and counting)

    I believe embracing formal sedevacantism inflicts mortal wounds on the concept of authority -- that is why +Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. "don't go there". But that's another discussion for another day.

    Nevertheless, we mustn't downplay the Crisis to be some kind of "the pope just doesn't understand. Maybe we can help him understand!" No, it's much more grave than that.

    And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis. But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.

    I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline trento

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 362
    • Reputation: +69/-2
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #6 on: July 15, 2015, 12:08:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well....there are many flavors among SSPX chapel attendees. Even Fr. Laisney preached against Laudato Si.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13949
    • Reputation: +7109/-2204
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #7 on: July 15, 2015, 12:37:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    You could replace "Papal encyclical" with "Pope" and we could have the same discussion -- it's the classic "To be Sede or not to be Sede" argument.


    Not entirely.  Msgr. Fenton focuses on the Encyclical because it's addressed to the Universal Church (vs. an allocution, Wednesday audience, off-the-cuff remarks on a plane, etc.)

    Quote
    Of course Catholics don't normally "rip" an encyclical -- or a Pope for that matter. But we're in a unique situation where the Pope -- the principle of unity -- has become a revolutionary and a principle of DISunity and a principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith. He has worked tirelessly to DESTROY the Catholic Church from within.


    That this could be the case with regard to the Pope per se as a person, concedo.  That this could be the case with regard to the Magisterium, nego.  That's the blur that the old "faith is greater than obedience" dictum causes.  What you're effectively saying here is that THE MAGISTERIUM has become a "principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith".

    That is NOT CATHOLIC, Matthew.  It completely blows away the indefectibility of the Church.

    Quote
    To me, it goes without saying that "dogmatic sedeplenism" is an error in this Crisis. No one has received from God the assurance that the recent popes are even popes.


    Under normal circumstances, Matthew, we DO have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of popes.  Without that certainty of faith, we cannot have certainty of faith regarding any dogmas they promulgate either.  That's why papal legitimacy is classified as a dogmatic fact.

    In saying that we do not have divine assurance of papal legitimacy, then you are not in fact truly a sedeplenist.  If you cannot aver legitimacy with the certainty of faith, then you are not a sedeplenist.  You are a sede-doubtist, just like myself.  And it is on the basis of such a doubt and only on the basis of such a doubt that we can justify a categorical refusal to submit to and give religious submission to the MAGISTERIUM.  We are NOT talking about Popes, but about the MAGISTERIUM.

    Msgr. Fenton articulates the same point I have been trying to make for years.  We can talk all we want about whether or not any give line in Vatican II is strictly infallible.  But that's missing the forest for the trees.  It can NEVER HAPPEN that Catholics can jeopardize their faith by giving religious submission to the universal papal magisterium ... whether fallible or not.  That's the principle of infallible safety.

    I will quote salient points from the Msgr. Fenton article in a little bit.

    Quote
    Of course, the Sedevacntists also can't be dogmatic, since God hasn't told anyone that the recent popes are NOT popes. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly entertained the possibility, but for various reasons did not take the step of becoming sedevacantist.


    Absolutely correct.  And this is where I take the SVs to task.  In fact, I have said that they do not have the right to consider these men deposed absent the authority of the Church ... the missing ingredient in SVism.  Archbishop Lefebvre then is also in the category of sede-doubtist ... because he lacked the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes, a certainty that's automatically precluded by merely entertaining the POSSIBILITY of vacancy.

    R&R dogmatic sedeplenism leads to Protestant Magisterium-sifting.  Correct from the SV camp.  But SVism leads to Protestant pope-sifting ... something which they fail to recognize.

    Quote
    I believe embracing formal sedevacantism inflicts mortal wounds on the concept of authority -- that is why +Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. "don't go there". But that's another discussion for another day.


    Absolutely agreed, Matthew.  SVism completely ignores the role of "authority" in this entire matter.  By sifting popes, no dogma is safe.  Even if the pope were to declare a dogma that some Catholic found unpalatable, all he'd have to do is to state "Aha, see, that Pope must not be a pope because he just defined a false dogma."  At that point the ultimate criterion for dogma becomes private judgment and the Magisterium becomes subjected to a constant convalidation feedback loop (not unlike the modernist concept of Magisterium).  This is what I called the modus tollentis SV position whereby they argue a posteriori from a perceived false teaching to papal illegitimacy.  It rules out any a priori certainty of faith regarding any given Church dogma.

    Quote
    And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis. But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.


    If this were just hypothetical "philosophizing", I could hardly care less.  What I'm more concerned with are the practical implications.  When you create generations of Catholics who think it's OK or normal to essentially "flip off" any given Pope, you're starting to create something that's inherently non-Catholic.  We must not get so mired in the notion of "rebellion" as to forget this.  WE OWE AT LEAST RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION TO ALL THE TEACHINGS OF THE PAPAL MAGISTERIUM.

    THIS is why the question is important, not because of hypothetical speculation regarding papal legitimacy.

    Quote
    I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.


    Agreed.  SVism solves absolutely nothing ... unless you think the crisis was solved by the election of Pope Bawden.  I'm interested in the PRINCIPLES.  Whatever we do in this crisis, we must not and cannot abandon Traditional Catholic principles regarding the papacy or even compromise in the least bit our sensus fidei regarding the attitude of respect, loyalty, and submission which we owe to the Magisterium of the Holy See.  Be the Pope as a person the greatest scumbag on the planet, the Magisterium remains unsullied by it.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13949
    • Reputation: +7109/-2204
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #8 on: July 15, 2015, 12:38:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As I've repeatedly mentioned, Father Chazal's position was music to my ears.  He avoids both the R&R trap and the SV trap.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3577
    • Reputation: +3514/-224
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #9 on: July 15, 2015, 02:11:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The issue is the efforts on behalf of SSPXism to protect the pope and his ideas from serious scrutiny.
    Why are they concerned about this? There is likely nothing Catholic to be read in these letters, but there are however, modernist and marxist ideas masquerading as teaching.
    Why would they not discourage the reading of these documents, as they can clearly infect souls with errors and worse?

    This fellow, as were his recent predecessors, is a Modernist by any reasonable standard, and if a Modernist, then a Heretic, clearly demonstrated via Pacendi.

    Who is interested in what a heretic has to teach? It should certainly not be a group which claims to defend Catholic truth.
    They have nothing to teach except how to lose your Faith. Wolves among the sheep being led to the slaughter.  

    The Church and Her souls need to be defended against the wickedness of Modernists, and not sacrifice their innocence to please them.

    The SSPX is on the bus!


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3577
    • Reputation: +3514/-224
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #10 on: July 15, 2015, 02:17:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Bellator Dei
    Quote from: Matthew
    From the "SSPX Faithful" Facebook group.
    Vanessa Dredger is one of the Admins.

    Vanessa Dredger
    June 20 at 2:30pm · Union, KY

    No further posts concerning the Pope's encyclical "Laudato Si" will be allowed on this page until further notice. An exception will be made for any posts on this topic from the SSPX website. This topic has been sufficiently discussed and moderated in previous posts below, which you may read through if you wish to join the conversation. As always, any flippant remarks will be immediately deleted.

    Vanessa Dredger: Though your assumption that I have not read the complete encyclical from cover to cover is true: I've only read parts of it. I've been busy curtailing the flagrant dissension over it. I will say at as an admin of this page I have no more restraint in me to keep myself from taking action upon those who cannot follow the rules here. I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained. I will no longer babysit you as you sit and make this situation worse than it needs to be.



    What exactly is "rampant" dissent? Lots of people being upset about something?



    It's the rampant dissent from the SSPX rank and file...that's her real problem.

    Mrs. Dredger is a School Administrator for the SSPX, in Kentucky, and her husband is a Vice Principal.  Clearly, they toe the line and regurgitate the talking points from SSPX Corporate.

     



    Another gatekeeper, making safe the ground for the revolution to continue.
    Top shelf FSSP/Remnant stuff.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13949
    • Reputation: +7109/-2204
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #11 on: July 16, 2015, 09:22:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
    Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
    ...
    It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
    ...
    It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3577
    • Reputation: +3514/-224
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #12 on: July 16, 2015, 11:29:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This comes down to the point of does this man speak with the authority of, and as the pontiff of, the Catholic Church, or does he speak as himself by the teaching "authority" of the conciliar entity, which in general, has departed from Catholic teaching and doctrine. and is untrustworthy.

    Msgr, Fenton's references apply to the first, but, the second situation was not even conceived when these declarations were formulated, so paraphrasing what Father Hesse always said, "until he says something Catholic about Faith or Morals,.....I'm not interested".

    Offline BRCatholic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 63
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #13 on: July 16, 2015, 12:08:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

    "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:"

    Why can't theologians use these rules ?

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope
    « Reply #14 on: July 16, 2015, 07:06:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    [...]

    And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis.

    I resemble that remark!

    Quote from: Matthew
    But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.

    I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.

    What head-in-the-clouds philosophers? Just about every trad of which I am aware believes there is no move which can or should be made in the direction of restoration. Trads agree on almost nothing, but on this one issue, they are strangely unanimous. It has become a de fide tenet of the traddy faith that calls to action are grave error and tantamount to the rejection of prayer. The SSPX, SSPV, and even FSSP all walk in lockstep along with most others. What's to account for this improbably consensus? They have all fallen for the same bluff of invulnerability from a dog who is chained to a stake.

    Nobody can know how long the bi-party, progressive establishment, which is highly self-destructive and even suicidal, will continue in power. More importantly, that should not be a primary concern. Instead, the only concern should be whether one is fulfilling his Catholic duty.

    It is often said that there is no way to defend the Church today. However, that is only a sleight-of-hand covering the lack will to do so. Once a core Church Militant is reestablished, they will find no shortage of ways to defend the Faith and move toward eventual Church restoration.

    Even a lone-wolf, individual Catholic has ways to fight for the Faith, such as by working to reestablish the Church Militant. All that's lacking is the will.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16