Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ekim on March 25, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsRKKMVbN0M
-
Does anyone here know what the Resistance Priests say in the Una cuм of the Mass ?
Fr. Phieffier in particular .....
Comments please ..
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/nsRKKMVbN0M[/youtube]
-
Does anyone here know what the Resistance Priests say in the Una cuм of the Mass ?
Fr. Phieffier in particular .....
Comments please ..
I expect they say what the liturgy of the Latin Rite says they are supposed to say.
-
Thanks holysoulsacademy for posting that video, I am watching it now.
Luke
-
Still need to finish the Q & A piece of this video, but so far it just convinces me of the SV position more and more.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.
And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.
Problem:
The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.
And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.
Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!
Recognize and resist is the only logical position.
PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.
And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.
Problem:
The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.
And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.
Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!
Recognize and resist is the only logical position.
PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.
Good observation. Of course Vatican 2 is ambiguous. His argument is very weak. But remember that recognize and resist was never meant to be a permanent position: from this follows that a Catholic pope will be elected or the new church will deform itself out of being "recognized".
-
I was also surprised that he was not wearing a cassock. However, there are plenty of photos on the internet of clergyman in the 1920's and 30's also wearing such suites. But I do think he is supposed to be on the side of Traditional customs of the Church. Such suites are relatively new. I just thought his cross was hung up under his jacket.
Sean, I like your short and to the point critique of this video.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.
And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.
Problem:
The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.
And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.
Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!
Recognize and resist is the only logical position.
PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.
The SSPX leadership in wanting to join up with the Novus Ordo seems to admit that it's current R&R position is futile. Many years ago when visiting a local shrine here in India in the company of the then SSPX Superior, we were accosted by the Shrine's Rector. He tore into the Superior. "There is no way you can exercise an apostolate in any diocese either without the permission of the local bishop, or in defiance of him, and call yourselves Catholic. You are not Catholic." The then Superior (incidentally, now with the Newchurch) had no answer.
Its a great pity that double-dealing and backsliding by just TWO persons in Mumbai has ensured that we will perhaps never see the likes of Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Pivaranus in India.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.
And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.
Problem:
The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.
And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.
Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!
Recognize and resist is the only logical position.
PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.
There is nothing ambiguous about the sentence, "There is no Catholic God." That sentence was uttered by Jorge Bergoglio. It is fairly well certain that Jorge Bergoglio is not a bishop and it is likely that neither is he a priest. So the R&R folks are in the position of recognizing as the pope a layman who doesn't believe in the existence of a Catholic God. And that is logical?
-
There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.
-
There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.
In my mind it is unfortunate that sedevacantist bishops have not used more formality in declaring the existence of a sede vacante. I think they should be studying the question of jurisdiction and the rules for lawfully electing a Catholic pope. If they are not doing that they are failing in their duty to guide the flock. It is ridiculous that most people seem to still be expecting some kind of formal solution to come from the Conciliar Sect. The Conciliar Sect is not Catholic and has no authority in the Catholic Church whatsoever. It should be Catholic bishops who are formally excommunicating the members of the Conciliar Sect. And then they should proceed to lawfully elect a Catholic Pope.
-
There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.
You are right, there are judgments prior to the judgment of the Church for both R & R and sedevacatism.
-
There's been no legal declaration from the Church that he's not a Pope, but there's also been no legal declaration from the Church that the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, or NO "canonizations" are invalid, but that doesn't stop sedeplenists from calling them such.
In my mind it is unfortunate that sedevacantist bishops have not used more formality in declaring the existence of a sede vacante. I think they should be studying the question of jurisdiction and the rules for lawfully electing a Catholic pope. If they are not doing that they are failing in their duty to guide the flock. It is ridiculous that most people seem to still be expecting some kind of formal solution to come from the Conciliar Sect. The Conciliar Sect is not Catholic and has no authority in the Catholic Church whatsoever. It should be Catholic bishops who are formally excommunicating the members of the Conciliar Sect. And then they should proceed to lawfully elect a Catholic Pope.
The sedevacatist bishops and priests could be using their resources collectively to study this question and to work towards a resolution, i.e. A valid election by the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.
The fact is that this has never happened and I highly doubt, in the absence of a special grace, that they will ever organize to resolve the crisis.
The strange irony of this crisis is that it has always been a reachable goal for the SSPX with their vast resources. When Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Mayer were alive, they as members of the hierarchy could have called for an election. After their deaths, the SSPX still remains the only worldwide organization with the resources and personnel to approach the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy to educate them and urge them to take action by electing a Pope.
The sad reality is that the SSPX has been frozen in time, and has closed their minds on this issue. They have been bent on the view that they must exist as group within the Conciliar Church and under the antipope.
-
If the position of the SSPX is (now?) that the Vatican II docuмents are merely ambiguous and we are not sure about them, then that is news to me. I have a stack of books half an arm long written by over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre, +Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Gaudron and other SSPX priests that suggest an entirely different position. Here is just one excerpt from 'The Catechism of The Crisis' Fr Gaudron, Angelus press:
29. Should all the Vatican II docuмents be rejected?
The docuмents of Vatican II can be divided in three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal. that is, they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way; in their present formulation, they are unacceptable. This is the case with for the declaration of religious freedom. The ambiguous texts can be accepted if they are, in Archbishop Lefebvre's words, interpreted in the light of Tradition. The texts of the third group cannot be accepted until they have been rectified.
The ambiguous texts are one category, the erroneous/heretical texts are a separate category that must be completely rejected.
Luke
-
If the position of the SSPX is (now?) that the Vatican II docuмents are merely ambiguous and we are not sure about them, then that is news to me. I have a stack of books half an arm long written by over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre, +Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Gaudron and other SSPX priests that suggest an entirely different position. Here is just one excerpt from 'The Catechism of The Crisis' Fr Gaudron, Angelus press:
29. Should all the Vatican II docuмents be rejected?
The docuмents of Vatican II can be divided in three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal. that is, they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way; in their present formulation, they are unacceptable. This is the case with for the declaration of religious freedom. The ambiguous texts can be accepted if they are, in Archbishop Lefebvre's words, interpreted in the light of Tradition. The texts of the third group cannot be accepted until they have been rectified.
The ambiguous texts are one category, the erroneous/heretical texts are a separate category that must be completely rejected.
Luke
I don't see how Catholics have any business categorizing docuмents that allegedly come from the Church based on orthodoxy. If that entity is the Church, no one has the ability to make those statements nor should the be leading others to reject them.
That said, I think as a point of study, the categorization does help to narrow things down to the heresies contained therein.
-
If the position of the SSPX is (now?) that the Vatican II docuмents are merely ambiguous and we are not sure about them, then that is news to me. I have a stack of books half an arm long written by over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre, +Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Gaudron and other SSPX priests that suggest an entirely different position. Here is just one excerpt from 'The Catechism of The Crisis' Fr Gaudron, Angelus press:
29. Should all the Vatican II docuмents be rejected?
The docuмents of Vatican II can be divided in three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal. that is, they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way; in their present formulation, they are unacceptable. This is the case with for the declaration of religious freedom. The ambiguous texts can be accepted if they are, in Archbishop Lefebvre's words, interpreted in the light of Tradition. The texts of the third group cannot be accepted until they have been rectified.
The ambiguous texts are one category, the erroneous/heretical texts are a separate category that must be completely rejected.
Luke
Which goes back to what Bishop Sanborn said: the religion was changed substantially.
-
If the position of the SSPX is (now?) that the Vatican II docuмents are merely ambiguous and we are not sure about them, then that is news to me. I have a stack of books half an arm long written by over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre, +Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Gaudron and other SSPX priests that suggest an entirely different position. Here is just one excerpt from 'The Catechism of The Crisis' Fr Gaudron, Angelus press:
29. Should all the Vatican II docuмents be rejected?
The docuмents of Vatican II can be divided in three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal. that is, they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way; in their present formulation, they are unacceptable. This is the case with for the declaration of religious freedom. The ambiguous texts can be accepted if they are, in Archbishop Lefebvre's words, interpreted in the light of Tradition. The texts of the third group cannot be accepted until they have been rectified.
The ambiguous texts are one category, the erroneous/heretical texts are a separate category that must be completely rejected.
Luke
I don't see how Catholics have any business categorizing docuмents that allegedly come from the Church based on orthodoxy. If that entity is the Church, no one has the ability to make those statements nor should the be leading others to reject them.
That said, I think as a point of study, the categorization does help to narrow things down to the heresies contained therein.
Agreed!
And just like forbidden books that are condemned even when they have 1 bit of error, the whole council should be condemned because of numerous errors.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
He claims that if Vatican II has changed the substance of Catholicism, you must become sedevacantist.
And if it has changed only accidents, you must become Conciliar.
Problem:
The docuмents of Vatican II are inherently ambiguous.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally.
And since that is the case, the sedevacantists are in as much an erroneous position for their reaction as are the Conciliarists.
Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!
Recognize and resist is the only logical position.
PS: I was surprised to see him wearing a Conciliarist/Americanist "clergyman" suit instead of a cassock, and the Novus Ordo chain instead of a pectoral cross.
Presumably his use of the clerical suit is out of observance for the Council of Baltimore. I know that such dress is typically associated with modern clerics, but it need not be so.
If taken in a vacuum without regard to anything which VII has been used to justify, you *might* be able to get away with saying there's no heresy in the VII docuмents per se. Or, at least, that if there is that it is highly couched in ambiguous language, and to such a point that it could fool the best of men-- which it did, including the saintly Archbishop.
But when taken in context with the reforms that it was used to justify, the Canon Law which it caused, the new catechism which it cultivated and the various abuses and sacrileges which it patronized, we get a much clearer picture and even if the docuмents when taken in a vacuum are "merely" ambiguous,* it becomes abundantly clear that they were intended to produce the effect they have.
+Sanborn is also not *just* talking about the VII docs in and of themselves, and he makes this point at about ten minutes into the video or so. He's talking about the whole Novus Ordo program. If it any of it is a substantial break from Catholicism he makes his case, the only question is what year or with what event is his case made.
*Ambiguity in and of itself is not Catholic, so while it may not necessarily be heretical in that it is not directly opposed to some doctrine (after all, if Catholic teaching was always without need for explanation and extrapolation we would have no needs for theologians, doctors, teachers, etc.) it is quite a red flag that whatever was going on was insidious and unCatholic in design.
-----------------
So I watched the whole conference (I didn't watch all of the Q & A which began about an hour into the video). I thought on the whole it was very good. I think H.E. made his point very plainly and logically, though around forty minutes it gets a little less interesting as he goes into the "una cuм" and "opinionist" theories which I ultimately disagree with, but on the whole a very solid first forty minutes.
It is worth mentioning that the inclusion of the word "Resistance" in the title of the video does not at all refer to the SSPX Resistance, or at least it never came up in the conference-- perhaps it does a little later in the Q&A, I don't know.
-
The sedevacatist bishops and priests could be using their resources collectively to study this question and to work towards a resolution, i.e. A valid election by the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.
The fact is that this has never happened and I highly doubt, in the absence of a special grace, that they will ever organize to resolve the crisis.
The strange irony of this crisis is that it has always been a reachable goal for the SSPX with their vast resources. When Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Mayer were alive, they as members of the hierarchy could have called for an election. After their deaths, the SSPX still remains the only worldwide organization with the resources and personnel to approach the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy to educate them and urge them to take action by electing a Pope.
The sad reality is that the SSPX has been frozen in time, and has closed their minds on this issue. They have been bent on the view that they must exist as group within the Conciliar Church and under the antipope.
All is not lost. Here is a discussion from another forum:
Claiming Jurisdiction
Mr. Lane wrote this on the forum in June 2012 (Emphasis added):
Hello all,
I understand that there are some who find Gerry's newest views plausible and you may wish to discuss them here.
I'm sorry, but life is too short.
This whole "jurisdiction" theme is a red herring. The traditional clergy - the respectable ones anyway - do not claim jurisdiction. They do not claim to have a mission from the Church, in the canonical sense that matters. They do not claim to have authority over us. They are quite clear that they act at our request, and that the only jurisdiction they can lay claim to is that which is supplied for each act, under condition of "danger of death." This is a world away from habitual jurisdiction.
In principle their acts are essentially on the same basis as Gerry's own preaching of the faith. He has no mission either, yet if he presents Christian doctrine publicly he does not breach the law. To all those who demand to know "Who sent the traditional clergy?" we respond, "Who sent YOU?"
If there is a fault in the general view of the traditional clergy, it is in not claiming habitual jurisdiction. That is, it would be immeasurably better if Bishop Rangel had declared the see of Campos vacant in 1991 and assumed the office himself, on the basis of the election of the remaining Catholic clergy of the diocese. This would have been a classical and perfectly defensible act, with precedent in the history of the Church and no great difficulty even with the text of canon law (and certainly none with the intention of the lawgiver). This would have been done with the explicit statement that the approval of the Roman Pontiff is presumed until he appears and gives his actual decision.
Likewise the clergy in other places could make the case against their local modernist prelate, ideally by issuing a canonical admonition first, then proceed to elect a bishop, and have the SSPX or other bishops consecrate him, and thus begin the restoration of the hierarchy.
Such clear, canonically regular, and eminently defensible procedures would force the Novus bishops to face the reality of the crisis and decide to which church they really wish to belong. It would be likely that some of them would convert under such pressure, and could be
conditionally re-consecrated and take their places as undoubted Successors of the Apostles.
But none of this makes the traditional clergy today illegitimate. The absence of a canonical mission does not make them non-Catholics, and it does not make their ministrations unlawful. If a Jєω can lawfully baptise under canon law, as he can in danger of death, then a Catholic priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice without fearing that he acts illegitimately. If a half-instructed convert like Gerry can lawfully preach the faith, then so can a cradle-Catholic priest who has
undergone six years of training in a professional institute of formation.
If you find Gerry's latest views plausible and you think that those who decline to debate him are hiding from the truth, then so be it.
If Gerry reads this, I have a message for him: Start again, Gerry, from scratch. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you bear a grave responsibility before God for whatever damage you do.
It has taken me quite a while to find this because it was in a topic about Gerry Matatics, which was not what I was thinking. In any event, I am wondering if John still agrees with what he wrote above or anyone thinks that today, in 2014, what is italicized above could ever be validly accomplished. And I was also wondering what the canonical and theological issues would be in doing such a thing.
I wonder how many actual validly ordained priests there exists in the archdiocese where I live, or, indeed, in many jurisdictions. Clearly, at least to my mind, asking the Novus Ordo priests in a diocese to be involved in such an action would be like asking the local Anglican, Lutheran, and Pres-byterian priests to be involved.
Dear TKGS,
Yes, I believe this approach to be absolutely viable and also the best approach, because traditional, clear, and almost certainly fruitful of a better outcome than this "treading water whilst slowly sinking" approach we currently endure.
But it isn't going to happen. :)
So Providence has permitted what we are currently witnessing and experiencing, and just as the Passion was "unnecessary" (Our Lord chose every detail of it), so the passion of the Mystical Body is proceeding as it is, by God's will.
Ok. Stupid question then: Why isn't it going to happen? Obviously, the SSPX bishops aren't going to do so because they "recognize" the jurisdiction of the Conciliar bishops (albeit, they don't seem to recognize their jurisdiction over the SSPX), but why do you think that no traditional and sedevacantist clergy will do this? If even one actually started the ball rolling, do you think it would catch on? If even one actually started the process, would that not begin to re-establish Apostolic succession within the believing Church?
To build on your stupid question TKGS,I will add a dumb one of my own. Just because it is unlikely, or likely going to be extremely difficult to visibly reastablish the hierarchy of the Church, does that mean the proper individuals (the clergy) should not even try or
do not have a obligation to try. Yes this is the apostasy of the end times, but many writers also mention the Antichrist persecuting the Church with many martyrs in the last days. To me unless the Church is restored at least in part the devil cannot feel very threatened and there is not many to persecute. If the devil feels like he is winning via subversion, why would he change strategies to oppression. It seems to me it would only be after he knew his deceit had failed would he switch gears.
If even one actually started the ball rolling, do you think it would catch on?
Yes, I do. But no, it won't happen. I am confident in that because there are three general views amongst trad clergy. 1. Sedeplenist. It's obvious why they won't act, although Archbishop Lefebvre explicitly advised that some traditionalists -i.e. those in Campos - do what we are discussing: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_Bishop_de_Castro_Mayer.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_Bishop_de_Castro_Mayer.htm) 2. Guerardian. They certainly won't act. Their practical outlook is essentially, "we can't do anything because there's an unresolvable legal lock-up". 3) Sedevacantist "laissez faire". Without criticising the men who hold this view, they have come from an irregular background themselves, in one way or another - e.g. the SSPX, or Schuckardt, etc., and can't really be blamed for not seeing themselves as the clergy of any particular diocese. Indeed, the CMRI sees itself as a religious congregation (albeit self-erected and irregular) as does the SSPV and the SSPX. None of the large groups of traditional priests have come from a diocesan background and do not see any reason to head in that direction. It's simply not on their radar. Indeed, their quasi-religious character is a result of the situation, I'd say. They have adopted a form of organisation suited to the extraordinary circuмstances they find themselves in - i.e. scattered groups of the faithful in countless different dioceses. So the last thing they are thinking about is ordinary jurisdiction, or any territorial structures at all.
The collapse of the Campos resistance was really the death-knell of this idea, I think.
The other thing to keep in view is that an essential modesty restricts all sound-minded people from taking steps that are not clearly necessary. So a traditional priest offering the Holy Sacrifice and providing the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them is on safe ground, whereas doing something more radical in an effort to "save the Church" would look like a temptation (and probably is).
Anyway, we don't need to stress about any of this. It's not our responsibility, and if God wanted the crisis to proceed differently, or end, He would arrange it. He is in charge, as He was in His Passion. He commanded the Jєωs not to touch His disciples in the garden of Gethsemane, and so they didn't (which would explain why St. Peter was not touched despite cutting off a man's ear!). He prevented the Jєωs from breaking His legs and having His Body thrown into the public pit as all victims of public execution were, and instead arranged for His Side to be opened, so that like Adam in his sleep, His spouse (the Church) could emerge, and likewise He arranged an honourable burial in a noble tomb. This crisis will humiliate the Church just in those ways and to that degree that He ordains, by His infinitely wise permission, and no more. Then she will rise glorious again.
I don't share John Lane's pessimism. Not that I think it will be easy but every Catholic has an obligation to help in whatever way they can to resolve the crisis. Maybe this could be the intention of a Rosary Crusade?
-
I do not think that Mr. Lane is being pessimistic, I think that he recognizes the significant limitations of all of us in this crisis.
With that said, I agree with you that a Rosary crusade is a good idea, but even with that who would call for it? We do not have a Pope to do it, so the leadership of the Church remains with the last members of the hierarchy. The trouble we have is that at present no one is certain who among the lawfully appointed bishops has kept the Faith and who has defected.
We could have a private CathInfo rosary crusade. I would be willing to participate in it. I wonder how many others would be. If we got a 100 Catholics on here to commit to even 15 decades each week for a Pope, I am sure that it would make a difference.
-
It takes some extreme measures carried out by the reformers in Rome to move folk closer to sedevecantism. And it seems those trads that keep fooling themselves as to the true situation with contemporary Rome are being overwhelmed by the fast pace of change pursued by Bergolgio and are having to look for new words to prop up their rather stale positions.. The reforms are moving into contraception, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, divorce and I predict abortion will not be far off down the pike. But even here I suspect some trads will turn a blind eye and pretend that a true church can still function with them.
The presiding priest is in communion with all these abominations at Mass with his una cuм submission if he recognises the conciliar popes. He may try to conceal or fudge it but the laity must know it is there. And if this has become a grey area in trad circles, it is to the discredit of those in authority turning the altar into a doubtful exercise. We must be grateful for Bp. Sanborn for clearing away the fog the SSPX and its deriviatives keep spewing out.
-
So I watched the whole conference (I didn't watch all of the Q & A which began about an hour into the video). I thought on the whole it was very good. I think H.E. made his point very plainly and logically, though around forty minutes it gets a little less interesting as he goes into the "una cuм" and "opinionist" theories which I ultimately disagree with, but on the whole a very solid first forty minutes.
It is worth mentioning that the inclusion of the word "Resistance" in the title of the video does not at all refer to the SSPX Resistance, or at least it never came up in the conference-- perhaps it does a little later in the Q&A, I don't know.
I found his una cuм and opinioinism points very interesting.
As for mentioning the Resistance, I did not hear any reference. It could have been mentioned by one of the questioners. I sometimes missed parts of their questions due to the thick British accents.
-
If the position of the SSPX is (now?) that the Vatican II docuмents are merely ambiguous and we are not sure about them, then that is news to me. I have a stack of books half an arm long written by over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre, +Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Gaudron and other SSPX priests that suggest an entirely different position. Here is just one excerpt from 'The Catechism of The Crisis' Fr Gaudron, Angelus press:
29. Should all the Vatican II docuмents be rejected?
The docuмents of Vatican II can be divided in three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal. that is, they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way; in their present formulation, they are unacceptable. This is the case with for the declaration of religious freedom. The ambiguous texts can be accepted if they are, in Archbishop Lefebvre's words, interpreted in the light of Tradition. The texts of the third group cannot be accepted until they have been rectified.
The ambiguous texts are one category, the erroneous/heretical texts are a separate category that must be completely rejected.
Luke
Luke-
The SSPX does not teach there are no errors in the V2 docs.
But where true errors are intelligible (as apposed to merely ambiguous statements), they are followed by equivocations, such that the error is negated by a true statement (or vice-versa).
The net result is null.
Therefore, Bishop Sanborn's theory of substantial doctrinal mutation, and the sedevacantist reaction he claims it mandates, is still erroneous.
-
The net result is null.
So, as a result of VII, the Catholic religion wasn't changed at all?
-
We must be grateful for Bp. Sanborn for clearing away the fog the SSPX and its deriviatives keep spewing out.
Indeed we must since he leaves us with a complete contradiction: the head of a non-Catholic sect (as he maintains) has received a designation to be Pope of the Catholic Church by men who likewise (he maintains) are members of the same non-Catholic sect. Therefore (he maintains) if Jorge Bergoglio converts he will become Pope...
But that is the same as saying the Dalai Lama has been designated to be the Pope by his fellow Tibetan Bhuddist monks and once he converts he too will be the Pope.
-
The net result is null.
So, as a result of VII, the Catholic religion wasn't changed at all?
Errors deriving from the Conciliar docuмents are either:
1) Arbitrary interpretations of inherently ambiguous phrases
or
2) True errors which are negated by their contradictory equivocation.
If you remove all this from the V2 docs, you are left with a very small pamphlet of pastoral platitudes and warm fuzzy feelings.
In any case, there was no attempt to hold out these errors (negated or not) as binding to Catholics.
This is how I can oppose Dignitatis Humanae as heretical, without concluding sedevacantism is compelled by that recognition.
-
"For God is not the God of confusion, but of peace, as also I teach in all the churches of the saints."
--1 Corinthians 14:33
An antipope promulgated the docuмents of this Robber Council, the docuмents of which were authored by Satan himself. The Holy Ghost would not sow the confusion that has devastated the Lord's Vineyard.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
"Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally."
I recall the Archbishop Lefebvre claiming that he, Archbishop Lefebvre, had no desire to belong to "this Conciliar Church"! They have a new religion, new bastard sacraments, new bastard rites-- it is a new religion!
"Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!"
"Recognize and resist is the only logical position."
Recognize and Resist is illogical, is dishonest, and down right deceitful. READ THE AFD!!! This is what they "recognize!" In said "recognition", they PROMISED love, loyalty, faithfulness! They swore allegiance to ALL the Vatican II popes; they swore acceptance of ALL Vatican II decrees and rulings (exempting only 'discussions' about 'certain' abuses). READ the AFD of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX Chapter to the Romans!
Do continue to persist in the "recognize and resist" mentality will split apart your mind, will tear apart your soul, will send you into the eternal hellfires ,which have been prepared for those who "deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Did Jesus Christ tell His Apostles "even if an angel of heaven were to come and preach to you something different that that which I have taught you, let him be anathema!" Anathema is excommunicated. John XXIII excommunicated himself by opening up the church to the modern ages, and accepting every sort of belief. He may have repented on his death bed-- we don't know for sure-- but he demanded "STOP THE COUNCIL!."
Montini was a communist sympathizer, if not a follower.
He was the agent of the enemies of Jesus Christ. He refused to stop the Council-- he had absolutely no right to continue on what the previous pope demanded be stopped. He loaded the Council up with the enemies of Christ and the Catholic Church. He deliberately allowed "the time bombs of Vatican II" to be issued under his watch. He snookered many, many, clerics. There were some 250 bishops, initially, who were united with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop de Castro Meyer and the others. Montini lied to all of them. All of them deserted the faith! He kept inserting that phrase "understood in the light of tradition," even though he KNEW that he was changing the Catholic faith. Montini even encouraged Msgr. Gomar dePauw (Long Island, New York) and Artchbishop Lefebvre to "Continue to do what you are doing-- it is important!"
Wyjtola was a syncretist;believed that the Old Testament had not yet been ended-- that the Jєωιѕн people are correct in expecting still the redeemer. he was an actor and a fraud-- no Catholic pope. Ratzinger was a Conciliarist all the way. Of course he saw an opportunity to gather , at long last, the elect of Christ's ( the traditional Catholics who maintained the faith) into their false religion-- so he said and did whatever would make everybody (including Fellay) happy. But Bergoglio-- he doesn't even pre tent! As he stated at the installation of this heretic into the seat of peter " The Carnival is Over!"
-
We must be grateful for Bp. Sanborn for clearing away the fog the SSPX and its deriviatives keep spewing out.
Indeed we must since he leaves us with a complete contradiction: the head of a non-Catholic sect (as he maintains) has received a designation to be Pope of the Catholic Church by men who likewise (he maintains) are members of the same non-Catholic sect. Therefore (he maintains) if Jorge Bergoglio converts he will become Pope...
But that is the same as saying the Dalai Lama has been designated to be the Pope by his fellow Tibetan Bhuddist monks and once he converts he too will be the Pope.
I agree and often use the same example. The sedeprivationist idea is so completely ridiculous when you consider that Bergoglio was a non Catholic at his election and the entire election is invalid. Accordingly, whether he converts will not make him a pope any more than if he does not convert, it will be a (valid) conclave that will decide.
-
Bishop Sanborn's entire rationale is flawed:
"Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether they have changed the substance of the Church substantially, or only accidentally."
I recall the Archbishop Lefebvre claiming that he, Archbishop Lefebvre, had no desire to belong to "this Conciliar Church"! They have a new religion, new bastard sacraments, new bastard rites-- it is a new religion!
"Oh, the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre!!"
"Recognize and resist is the only logical position."
Recognize and Resist is illogical, is dishonest, and down right deceitful. READ THE AFD!!! This is what they "recognize!" In said "recognition", they PROMISED love, loyalty, faithfulness! They swore allegiance to ALL the Vatican II popes; they swore acceptance of ALL Vatican II decrees and rulings (exempting only 'discussions' about 'certain' abuses). READ the AFD of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX Chapter to the Romans!
Do continue to persist in the "recognize and resist" mentality will split apart your mind, will tear apart your soul, will send you into the eternal hellfires ,which have been prepared for those who "deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Did Jesus Christ tell His Apostles "even if an angel of heaven were to come and preach to you something different that that which I have taught you, let him be anathema!" Anathema is excommunicated. John XXIII excommunicated himself by opening up the church to the modern ages, and accepting every sort of belief. He may have repented on his death bed-- we don't know for sure-- but he demanded "STOP THE COUNCIL!."
Montini was a communist sympathizer, if not a follower.
He was the agent of the enemies of Jesus Christ. He refused to stop the Council-- he had absolutely no right to continue on what the previous pope demanded be stopped. He loaded the Council up with the enemies of Christ and the Catholic Church. He deliberately allowed "the time bombs of Vatican II" to be issued under his watch. He snookered many, many, clerics. There were some 250 bishops, initially, who were united with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop de Castro Meyer and the others. Montini lied to all of them. All of them deserted the faith! He kept inserting that phrase "understood in the light of tradition," even though he KNEW that he was changing the Catholic faith. Montini even encouraged Msgr. Gomar dePauw (Long Island, New York) and Artchbishop Lefebvre to "Continue to do what you are doing-- it is important!"
Wyjtola was a syncretist;believed that the Old Testament had not yet been ended-- that the Jєωιѕн people are correct in expecting still the redeemer. he was an actor and a fraud-- no Catholic pope. Ratzinger was a Conciliarist all the way. Of course he saw an opportunity to gather , at long last, the elect of Christ's ( the traditional Catholics who maintained the faith) into their false religion-- so he said and did whatever would make everybody (including Fellay) happy. But Bergoglio-- he doesn't even pre tent! As he stated at the installation of this heretic into the seat of peter " The Carnival is over.
...and yet, that he was not sedevacantist rather tends to support my contention.