Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: SSPX New Ambiguous Line  (Read 665 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SanskritCrayon

Re: SSPX New Ambiguous Line
« Reply #5 on: Today at 10:37:18 AM »
Quote from: Giovanni Berto on Yesterday at 03:57:56 PM
I don't personally know any SSPX districts besides South America and Brazil, and I have heard before that the US district is the most liberal. In my personal experience, I have met and confessed with a single American SSPX priest, and he was no different from the South Americans SSPX priests of his generation.

Considering the American extremist mentality (not necessarily a bad thing), I would guess that all the hard liners have already left, so, there might some true to the commentary. Americans don't sit in the fence. So, at the present moment, probably you only have the liberals left in the US district.
The US district is definitely not the most liberal. It's somewhat well known in these circles that Western Europe is the most liberal. And of all these countries, Germany is the worst. According to someone who lives there, he has described it as being filled with all sorts of different flavors, psychological states, and opinions. He's admitted himself that there are serious problems there. He supports the pre-55 Missal and not kneeling for the Jews, but he thinks that Our Lord Jesus Christ himself said that absolutely all killing of human beings is wrong, regardless of whether it's self-defense, a war, or the death penalty. He thinks that before the time of Constantine, no saints ever said it was okay to kill in any circuмstance. He thinks the authority of Our Lord in the New Testament is the supreme authority, and so he isn't convinced by popes defending the use of the death penalty. Some are very conservative I've heard, but it's mostly lax over there. Apparently there is some tension between the more conservative and less conservative clergy as well. In many churches, most women do not wear veils, and the priests don't do anything about it. I have also heard that in Europe, there are more priests who say that the NO Missal can be licit if it is said strictly according to the rubrics, which would align with Bp. Fellay's statement in the Doctrinal Declaration that the "Rite of Paul VI was legitimately promulgated." Places like Belgium, France, Switzerland, and Austria are also known for their problems. After all, Menzingen is in Switzerland, not America.
Logged

Online Twice dyed

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX New Ambiguous Line
« Reply #6 on: Today at 12:37:29 PM »
Quote from: SanskritCrayon on Today at 10:37:18 AM
"... I have also heard that in Europe, there are more priests who say that the NO Missal can be licit if it is said strictly according to the rubrics, which would align with Bp. Fellay's statement in the Doctrinal Declaration that the "Rite of Paul VI was legitimately promulgated."...
Fr Gregory Hesse R.I.P., said the New Ordo Missae is illicit, simply because it harms the Faith. A law that harms the Faith is automatically illegal...illicit, and cannot be enforced.

Are you sure you meant  " can be licit" and not  "can be VALID"?  The Trad world has for the most part agreed that the N.O. mass could be valid ( valid priest, said in Latin, good intention, and all the due respect of the sacrament etc. )  The problem is the translations, erroneous intentions and clown mass etc.

  My friend in Germany 1990s, saw a female ministress? actively involved in a N.O. mass that was t0ple** !  Things like that invalidate the sacraments...cause scandal, corrupt morals.  Shocked, he left the N.O. and found the SSPX.

  Remember JP II in the photo, where a woman is reading the epistle, but was also tople**? The photo is in the book 'Peter Lovest thou Me?, written by my friend Daniel Le Roux, former seminarian Econe, who is today a layman and an internationally recognized mathematician. He asked ++L if the photo should be printed in his book...to which the Archbishop replied:  'Yes. Publish it...this is the reality.'

  +L always said that the N.O. mass could be valid in certain cases.
+Fellay didn't tell the truth when he used the term "legitimately promulgated". He doesn't understand the legal distinctions. POPE St Pius V promulgated the Latin Rite Mass etc...therefore only a POPE (equivalent status in authority) could therefore promulgate any changes in a future alternate mass. Fr Hesse said that Paul VI never signed off the N.O. mass, but only some "new Vatican Office" cardinal (his signature is in the Missal 1969, which I don't have!)  Yes, Pope Paul VI wrote the 'Constitutione Missale Romanum', April 3, 1969 but this can't / doesn't of itself, abrogate Quo Primum.
Under BXVI, a study concluded the same: that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated>Summorum Pontificuм 2007.

  I admit I don't know much about Canon law etc. ; I just listen to Fr G Hesse, canon lawyer.  If you want a reference to that conference, I would dig it up.

  Now, with the latest Declaration of Faith from Fr. P, should anyone still  promote the upcoming Consecrations? The hope they get exco as proof of their holding fast to Tradition?  State of necessity?

  I am more confused about which position to hold...Today the neoSSPX goal posts are, as we say in French, flou, (blurred),  so flouid.!..! punt intended.;)

St Pius X, born June 2,  in 1835 AD.
St. Pius X, pray for us.




Logged

Offline SanskritCrayon

Re: SSPX New Ambiguous Line
« Reply #7 on: Today at 01:08:23 PM »
Quote from: Twice dyed on Today at 12:37:29 PM
Fr Gregory Hesse R.I.P., said the New Ordo Missae is illicit, simply because it harms the Faith. A law that harms the Faith is automatically illegal...illicit, and cannot be enforced.

Are you sure you meant  " can be licit" and not  "can be VALID"?  The Trad world has for the most part agreed that the N.O. mass could be valid ( valid priest, said in Latin, good intention, and all the due respect of the sacrament etc. )  The problem is the translations, erroneous intentions and clown mass etc.

  My friend in Germany 1990s, saw a female ministress? actively involved in a N.O. mass that was t0ple** !  Things like that invalidate the sacraments...cause scandal, corrupt morals.  Shocked, he left the N.O. and found the SSPX.

  Remember JP II in the photo, where a woman is reading the epistle, but was also tople**? The photo is in the book 'Peter Lovest thou Me?, written by my friend Daniel Le Roux, former seminarian Econe, who is today a layman and an internationally recognized mathematician. He asked ++L if the photo should be printed in his book...to which the Archbishop replied:  'Yes. Publish it...this is the reality.'

  +L always said that the N.O. mass could be valid in certain cases.
+Fellay didn't tell the truth when he used the term "legitimately promulgated". He doesn't understand the legal distinctions. POPE St Pius V promulgated the Latin Rite Mass etc...therefore only a POPE (equivalent status in authority) could therefore promulgate any changes in a future alternate mass. Fr Hesse said that Paul VI never signed off the N.O. mass, but only some "new Vatican Office" cardinal (his signature is in the Missal 1969, which I don't have!)  Yes, Pope Paul VI wrote the 'Constitutione Missale Romanum', April 3, 1969 but this can't / doesn't of itself, abrogate Quo Primum.
Under BXVI, a study concluded the same: that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated>Summorum Pontificuм 2007.

  I admit I don't know much about Canon law etc. ; I just listen to Fr G Hesse, canon lawyer.  If you want a reference to that conference, I would dig it up.

  Now, with the latest Declaration of Faith from Fr. P, should anyone still  promote the upcoming Consecrations? The hope they get exco as proof of their holding fast to Tradition?  State of necessity?

  I am more confused about which position to hold...Today the neoSSPX goal posts are, as we say in French, flou, (blurred),  so flouid.!..! punt intended.;)

St Pius X, born June 2,  in 1835 AD.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
That writing is somewhat messy I must say, but yes, I did indeed say the word "licit." The SSPX used to say that the Novus Ordo Missae was always illicit, regardless of circuмstances, and even people like Fr. Robinson still say that. Nevertheless, there are some priests not only in Europe but also (to a lesser extent) in America and probably elsewhere that say that the NO Missae can be licit if it is said strictly according to the rubrics. It doesn't take that much for a Mass to be valid - we know that. I've talked to someone who used to go the SSPX in France and yes, there were indeed priests who said that the NO Missae could be licit according to certain circuмstances. After all, Fr. Celier advocated the hybridization of the NO Mass with the TLM in that strange 2007 book called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" which is only in French. Do I agree with them about this? Of course not.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »