Author Topic: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"  (Read 2373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria Regina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Reputation: +729/-160
  • Gender: Female
Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2019, 01:22:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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, after a deceased Catholic has been declared a Servant of God by a bishop and proposed for beatification by the Pope, such a servant of God may next be declared venerable ("heroic in virtue") during the investigation and process leading to possible canonization as a saint."
    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

    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.
    Lord have mercy.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 478
    • Reputation: +103/-32
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #16 on: July 17, 2019, 05:48:22 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • What did I just walk into?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17853
    • Reputation: +9987/-4482
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #17 on: July 17, 2019, 08:53:55 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4431
    • Reputation: +4004/-1318
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #18 on: July 17, 2019, 09:00:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23022
    • Reputation: +20176/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #19 on: July 17, 2019, 11:14:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17853
    • Reputation: +9987/-4482
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #20 on: July 18, 2019, 05:04:06 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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:
    Quote
    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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4431
    • Reputation: +4004/-1318
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #21 on: July 18, 2019, 07:16:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #22 on: July 18, 2019, 07:36:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just one of several rebuttals of the sede mantra:

    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.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1039
    • Reputation: +723/-229
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #23 on: July 18, 2019, 07:47:42 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1486
    • Reputation: +593/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #24 on: July 18, 2019, 08:01:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #25 on: July 18, 2019, 08:39:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4629
    • Reputation: +2148/-901
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #26 on: July 18, 2019, 09:05:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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 there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    • Reputation: +159/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #27 on: July 18, 2019, 09:28:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1315
    • Reputation: +96/-148
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #28 on: July 18, 2019, 04:52:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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. 
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +247/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Moving Toward Accepting Conciliar "Saints?"
    « Reply #29 on: July 19, 2019, 06:09:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

     

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