Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on July 13, 2019, 03:06:30 PM
-
In this current SSPX.org announcement, the SSPX refers to Maria Teresa Gonzalez Quevedo as "Venerable."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/calendar/ven-teresita-quevedo-girls%E2%80%99-camp-45049 (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/calendar/ven-teresita-quevedo-girls%E2%80%99-camp-45049)
Problem: That title was given to her in 1983 by JPII.
Is the SSPX incrementally moving towards an acceptance of conciliar saints?
Of course they are: One cannot be accepted by the conciliar church while rejecting its "saints" (that would be resistance, you see, and as Fr. Cottier explained upon his conquest of Campos, "What is important is that there no longer be resistance in their hearts.").
But what does it mean to be considered venerable?
"In the Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church), after a deceased Catholic has been declared a Servant of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_God) by a bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Catholic_Church)) and proposed for beatification by the Pope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope), such a servant of God may next be declared venerable ("heroic in virtue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_virtue)") during the investigation and process leading to possible canonization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization) as a saint."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venerable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venerable)
But has not the SSPX of old expressed serious reservations on this new conciliar concept of "heroic virtue?"
See this 2011 article from Fr. Gleize (SSPX) explaining new and redefined concept of "heroic virtue" (scroll down to "Third Difficulty: Heroic Virtue):
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3 (http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3)
Little by little, the SSPX is moving from integral Catholicism to integral conciliarism.
-
Their mass is the "mass of Saint John XXIII." today.
-
Their mass is the "mass of Saint John XXIII." today.
I attend an SSPX chapel that uses the 1962 Missal and said Missal IS the Latin Mass. What makes you think otherwise?
-
I attend an SSPX chapel that uses the 1962 Missal and said Missal IS the Latin Mass. What makes you think otherwise?
The 1962 Missal was a revision of John XXIII
-
The 1962 Missal was a revision of John XXIII :applause:
-
What are the differences between the 1962 Latin Mass and the Mass before that?
-
What are the differences between the 1962 Latin Mass and the Mass before that?
Holy Week was destroyed by Bugnini under Pius XII in 1955.
John XXIII inserted St. Joseph in to the Canon, removed the second Confiteor and some other changes I think. Someone else knows, I’m sure.
-
Canonisations are infallible. Still not sure how you can call someone a true Pope but reject their canonisations.
-
Exactly! Well said.
-
Even today most of the 'conciliar' saints never attended the Novus Ordo.
-
Speaking of canonizations, I just saw a post on SuscipeDomine where a poster was suggesting opening the cause of canonization for Archbishop Lefebrve....by Rome. :facepalm:
-
Speaking of canonizations, I just saw a post on SuscipeDomine where a poster was suggesting opening the cause of canonization for Archbishop Lefebrve....by Rome. :facepalm:
Did they provide any links regarding the alleged Vatican initiative?
The notion of “excommunicated” saints in the conciliar church apparently does not present an obstacle.
I can easily imagine the “canonization” speech submitted to Francis by a Dutch branding company:
“He was a man of the Church...he wuved the pweesthood...”
-
Did they provide any links regarding the alleged Vatican initiative?
The notion of “excommunicated” saints in the conciliar church apparently does not present an obstacle.
I can easily imagine the “canonization” speech submitted to Francis by a Dutch branding company:
“He was a man of the Church...he wuved the pweesthood...”
This was presented by the SD poster. It appears he is hoping to get Rome to do this in the future.
-
Did they provide any links regarding the alleged Vatican initiative?
The notion of “excommunicated” saints in the conciliar church apparently does not present an obstacle.
I can easily imagine the “canonization” speech submitted to Francis by a Dutch branding company:
“He was a man of the Church...he wuved the pweesthood...”
Didn't St Joan of Arc get excommunicated, and then canonized before Vatican II?
-
Didn't St Joan of Arc get excommunicated, and then canonized before Vatican II?
Son, your time will be much better spent pestering someone more on your level.
-
In this current SSPX.org announcement, the SSPX refers to Maria Teresa Gonzalez Quevedo as "Venerable."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/calendar/ven-teresita-quevedo-girls%E2%80%99-camp-45049 (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/calendar/ven-teresita-quevedo-girls%E2%80%99-camp-45049)
Problem: That title was given to her in 1983 by JPII.
Is the SSPX incrementally moving towards an acceptance of conciliar saints?
Of course they are: One cannot be accepted by the conciliar church while rejecting its "saints" (that would be resistance, you see, and as Fr. Cottier explained upon his conquest of Campos, "What is important is that there no longer be resistance in their hearts.").
But what does it mean to be considered venerable?
"In the Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church), after a deceased Catholic has been declared a Servant of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_God) by a bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Catholic_Church)) and proposed for beatification by the Pope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope), such a servant of God may next be declared venerable ("heroic in virtue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_virtue)") during the investigation and process leading to possible canonization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization) as a saint."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venerable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venerable)
But has not the SSPX of old expressed serious reservations on this new conciliar concept of "heroic virtue?"
See this 2011 article from Fr. Gleize (SSPX) explaining new and redefined concept of "heroic virtue" (scroll down to "Third Difficulty: Heroic Virtue):
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3 (http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3)
Little by little, the SSPX is moving from integral Catholicism to integral conciliarism.
The SSPX is simply following the Vatican II plan.
And please keep this on topic.
-
What did I just walk into?
-
Canonisations are infallible. Still not sure how you can call someone a true Pope but reject their canonisations.
You can't. Either these Conciliar "saints" are currently in heaven interceding for the Church militant or the men who canonized them were not legitimate popes.
-
You can't. Either these Conciliar "saints" are currently in heaven interceding for the Church militant or the men who canonized them were not legitimate popes.
Replay #16 about why that is nonsense?
-
Holy Week was destroyed by Bugnini under Pius XII in 1955.
John XXIII inserted St. Joseph in to the Canon, removed the second Confiteor and some other changes I think. Someone else knows, I’m sure.
There are no "other changes I think". No need to be vague or exaggerate.
There were only 2 changes. St. Joseph was added to the Canon, and yes technically the 2nd Confiteor was removed, though in practice the SSPX and most 1962 users keep it in. I can't speak to what Indult and "approved by Rome" communities do in this regard.
Other than that, it is completely Tridentine. Nothing wrong with it, nothing to be criticized. Nothing weak, nothing defective.
-
Replay #16 about why that is nonsense?
Tell that to all the Catholic saints and theologians who teach otherwise.
Evidently St. Thomas Aquinas himself teaches "nonsense".
Aquinas:
Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err
It's one thing if you respectfully disagree, but quite another in your hubris to denounce this common teaching as "nonsense". You cross the line from theological opinion into grave irreverence.
-
Tell that to all the Catholic saints and theologians who teach otherwise.
Evidently St. Thomas Aquinas himself teaches "nonsense".
Aquinas:
It's one thing if you respectfully disagree, but quite another in your hubris to denounce this common teaching as "nonsense". You cross the line from theological opinion into grave irreverence.
Just one of several rebuttals of the sede mantra:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4289-are-pope-francis-canonizations-infallible (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4289-are-pope-francis-canonizations-infallible)
-
Just one of several rebuttals of the sede mantra:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4289-are-pope-francis-canonizations-infallible (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4289-are-pope-francis-canonizations-infallible)
Salsa does not seem to grasp the sedevacantist positon. His "Faulty Major Premise and Conclusion" are a straw man. From SV-perspective, the conciliar popes cannot be Saints because they aren't Catholic in the first place. And even if they were Catholic, then Bergoglio cannot canonize them because Bergoglio is neither Catholic nor Pope.
-
Tell that to all the Catholic saints and theologians who teach otherwise.
Evidently St. Thomas Aquinas himself teaches "nonsense".
Aquinas:
It's one thing if you respectfully disagree, but quite another in your hubris to denounce this common teaching as "nonsense". You cross the line from theological opinion into grave irreverence.
I accidentally downvoted this comment. You are exactly right, Ladislaus. I will go further and say that recognize and resist produces an irreverent evaluation of authority in general. It is very American. Not something to be proud of.
-
Salsa does not seem to grasp the sedevacantist positon. His "Faulty Major Premise and Conclusion" are a straw man. From SV-perspective, the conciliar popes cannot be Saints because they aren't Catholic in the first place. And even if they were Catholic, then Bergoglio cannot canonize them because Bergoglio is neither Catholic nor Pope.
It's a classic tactic of his, and some users here who seem to be his disciples, to defend their beliefs by accusing others of believing the same. Here's a typical scenario you'll often see on Cathinfo: A sedevacantist says if you believe Paul VI was the true Pope then you cannot condemn the Mass he promulgated as impious and unholy, an R&R replies "then why don't you go to NO masses!", completely ignoring that the sedevacantist doesn't share his belief that Paul VI was Pope. I've seen that exact same scenario play out dozens of times. I'm not saying that there aren't valid counter-arguments about the claim the sedevacantist character made in that scenario, but instead of those actual points we usually just get fallacies, like the one I described above, and trying to point out the fallacy just leads to the entire topic getting derailed.
Almost makes me wonder if it's an intentional tactic to dodge the issue.
-
It's a classic tactic of his, and some users here who seem to be his disciples, to defend their beliefs by accusing others of believing the same. Here's a typical scenario you'll often see on Cathinfo: A sedevacantist says if you believe Paul VI was the true Pope then you cannot condemn the Mass he promulgated as impious and unholy, an R&R replies "then why don't you go to NO masses!", completely ignoring that the sedevacantist doesn't share his belief that Paul VI was Pope. I've seen that exact same scenario play out dozens of times. I'm not saying that there aren't valid counter-arguments about the claim the sedevacantist character made in that scenario, but instead of those actual points we usually just get fallacies, like the one I described above, and trying to point out the fallacy just leads to the entire topic getting derailed.
Almost makes me wonder if it's an intentional tactic to dodge the issue.
I'd guess its not intentional, rather a habit of decades of general R&R hallmark thinking within one's own nose: Call the Conciliar Sect Conciliar Sect and then ask the head of that sect permission to do this or that, recognition of catholicity, lifting of excommunications, etc.
-
I'd guess its not intentional, rather a habit of decades of general R&R hallmark thinking within one's own nose: Call the Conciliar Sect Conciliar Sect and then ask the head of that sect permission to do this or that, recognition of catholicity, lifting of excommunications, etc.
For some. For others? I believe intentional and of bad will.
-
For some. For others? I believe intentional and of bad will.
For the majority of users here and elsewhere not intentional, no bad will, I guess.
-
I was the one who posted on SD about starting up Archbishop Lefebvre's canonization process. There was some opposition, hardly unexpected, but also some support, and there is a prayer thread dedicated almost exclusively for it. There's also an ongoing Rosary crusade where we've come to 2800+ Rosaries. Archbishop Lefebvre will be recognized as a Saint one day. I wish those who had that conviction would already begin asking his intercession. Recently, Archbishop Sheen's beatification process began with a reported miracle.
Why? Because many, many people were asking for his intercession. So in one case, God answered. I wish all would do the same for +ABL.
As for canonization, is it infallible? The question is nuanced. Does the Pope say the person canonized is in heaven? Yes, most definitely. Anything necessarily more than that? The Papal canonization decree only says that the person is in heaven and is to venerated by all.
-
I was the one who posted on SD about starting up Archbishop Lefebvre's canonization process. There was some opposition, hardly unexpected, but also some support, and there is a prayer thread dedicated almost exclusively for it. There's also an ongoing Rosary crusade where we've come to 2800+ Rosaries. Archbishop Lefebvre will be recognized as a Saint one day. I wish those who had that conviction would already begin asking his intercession. Recently, Archbishop Sheen's beatification process began with a reported miracle.
Why? Because many, many people were asking for his intercession. So in one case, God answered. I wish all would do the same for +ABL.
As for canonization, is it infallible? The question is nuanced. Does the Pope say the person canonized is in heaven? Yes, most definitely. Anything necessarily more than that? The Papal canonization decree only says that the person is in heaven and is to venerated by all.
+ABL is a Catholic saint. Asking apostate Romans to canonize him is saying that +ABL is a saint along with Oscar Romero and JPII.
If you want the conciliar church, there’s the FSSP, and the neoSSPX. If you want to follow+ABL, you need to stop playing the cognitive dissonance game.