It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:46 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
 The SSPX position 
Author Message

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post The SSPX position
What are the main reasons why the SSPX (recognise & resist) position is an incorrect one?


Tue May 01, 2012 11:16 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The SSPX position
Well, there's the fact that the Church cannot defect. A church that institutes a New Mass or a New Code is not the Catholic Church.

Then there's the fact, now apparently acknowledged virtually by all, including most SSPX priests, that Ratzinger doesn't have the Catholic Faith: yet a non-Catholic cannot be pope.

Finally, there is the proper attitude of Catholics towards the hierarchy of the Church, which the SSPX stance makes impossible. Fr. Cekada's description was perfect - Benedict is a cardboard cut-out pope, for display purposes only. (And the proposed new arrangement is being promoted and defended precisely on the basis that it will not require any true submission of the SSPX to Benedict.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 01, 2012 11:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
John Lane wrote:
Then there's the fact, now apparently acknowledged virtually by all, including most SSPX priests, that Ratzinger doesn't have the Catholic Faith: yet a non-Catholic cannot be pope.


...and the fact, although not acknowledged by all...yet...that he isn't even a valid bishop...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue May 01, 2012 3:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The SSPX position
Cam wrote:
What are the main reasons why the SSPX (recognise & resist) position is an incorrect one?


The main reason is that the SSPX recognizes Benedict XVI as a true Pope. Not only, but, in a schismatic way, she disobeys the person considered by the SSPX herself the true Authority in the Church. More, to justify her position, the SSPX reduces to nothing the papal and ecclesiastical infallibility arguing that the Pope is infallible in very very rare occasions.


Thu May 03, 2012 10:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The SSPX position
Gabriele wrote:
Cam wrote:
What are the main reasons why the SSPX (recognise & resist) position is an incorrect one?


The main reason is that the SSPX recognizes Benedict XVI as a true Pope. Not only, but, in a schismatic way, she disobeys the person considered by the SSPX herself the true Authority in the Church. More, to justify her position, the SSPX reduces to nothing the papal and ecclesiastical infallibility arguing that the Pope is infallible in very very rare occasions.


The SSPX, and virtually all sedeplenist traditional Catholics, must, in order to justify their "recognize and resist" attitute, completely eliminate the doctrine of the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In fact, they generally equate the ordinary and universal magisterium with the extraordinary magisterium and say that one need not accept any doctrine proposed by the bishops united with the pope unless it be solemnly decreed in Ecumenical Council or by the Pope using a certain formula.

The fact that the Conciliar pope and virtually all the bishops teach heresies such religious indifferentism, universal (or near-universal) salvation, equating the gods of the Jews and Muslims with the One True God, and a completely new definition concerning the Real Presence is ignored because, you see, these heresies weren't solemnly declared (they say) and therefore aren't really a part of magisterial teaching. However, no one can rationally declare that these aren't ordinary and universal teachings of the Conciliar church.

Thus, either the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and its head is not the Catholic Pope, or the Catholic Church with her Papal head has changed her solemn teachings (which means God is not and never has been infinite).

Only the first position can be true.


Fri May 04, 2012 12:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
TKGS wrote:
The SSPX, and virtually all sedeplenist traditional Catholics, must, in order to justify their "recognize and resist" attitude, completely eliminate the doctrine of the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In fact, they generally equate the ordinary and universal magisterium with the extraordinary magisterium and say that one need not accept any doctrine proposed by the bishops united with the pope unless it be solemnly decreed in Ecumenical Council or by the Pope using a certain formula.

The fact that the Conciliar pope and virtually all the bishops teach heresies such as religious indifferentism, universal (or near-universal) salvation, equating the gods of the Jews and Muslims with the One True God, and a completely new definition concerning the Real Presence is ignored because, you see, these heresies weren't solemnly declared (they say) and therefore aren't really a part of magisterial teaching. However, no one can rationally declare that these aren't ordinary and universal teachings of the Conciliar church.

Thus, either the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and its head is not the Catholic Pope, or the Catholic Church with her Papal head has changed her solemn teachings (which means God is not and never has been infinite).

Only the first position can be true.


Truer words were seldom spoken.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri May 04, 2012 3:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Can someone here that is in the know regarding the SSPX explain to me where their rabid hatred of sedevacantists came from? When I was with them, I do not recall ever being conditioned to regard sedevacantists as the bottom of the barrel. So, this seems to me to be something that has cropped up the past dozen years or so.


Fri May 04, 2012 4:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Can someone here that is in the know regarding the SSPX explain to me where their rabid hatred of sedevacantists came from? When I was with them, I do not recall ever being conditioned to regard sedevacantists as the bottom of the barrel. So, this seems to me to be something that has cropped up the past dozen years or so.

That has always mystified me also, Lorraine. However, just attempt to explain the sede-impeditist stance to them sometime: anyone holding such a position is automatically, completely, and irrevocably insane in their view. They will not even entertain the remotest possibility that such a scenario could ever possibly occur. :shock:

It is as if the very idea simply terrifies them. They get downright nasty whenever it is brought up.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri May 04, 2012 8:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Ken Gordon wrote:
Lorraine wrote:
Can someone here that is in the know regarding the SSPX explain to me where their rabid hatred of sedevacantists came from? When I was with them, I do not recall ever being conditioned to regard sedevacantists as the bottom of the barrel. So, this seems to me to be something that has cropped up the past dozen years or so.

That has always mystified me also, Lorraine. However, just attempt to explain the sede-impeditist stance to them sometime: anyone holding such a position is automatically, completely, and irrevocably insane in their view. They will not even entertain the remotest possibility that such a scenario could ever possibly occur. :shock:

It is as if the very idea simply terrifies them. They get downright nasty whenever it is brought up.


Ken, I would like to know why this is. Perhaps there is someone here that can shed some light on their puzzling behavior.


Fri May 04, 2012 10:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Can someone here that is in the know regarding the SSPX explain to me where their rabid hatred of sedevacantists came from? When I was with them, I do not recall ever being conditioned to regard sedevacantists as the bottom of the barrel. So, this seems to me to be something that has cropped up the past dozen years or so.


I can give you some informations about the treatment reserved by Bp. Lefebvre to Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers for his 'sedevacantist' thesis. Fr. Guérard, who taught at Ecône, was expelled from teaching and any relationship with him ceased.

- From an interview to Fr. Guérard by Sodalitium (SODALITIUM n° 13, mars 1988, p. 18-34):

"Sodalitium: Vous avez longtemps collaboré avec la Fraternité St Pie X et vous avez été Professeur à
ECONE jusqu'en 1977 : pourquoi votre collaboration avec Mgr Lefebvre a-t-elle pris fin en 1977 ?
Mgr Guérard : J'ai collaboré avec Mgr Lefebvre, dès I'origine de son entreprise, Fribourg et Ecône, fin 1970. Le 25
décembre 1970, Mgr Lefebvre a célébré la Messe de minuit et prononcé l'homélie ; il est alors revenu, pour la joie de tous
à l'INTÉGRALITÉ du rite traditionnel. J'ai célébré la Messe du jour, prononcé l'homélie dont j'ai encore le plan, et chau-
dement remercié Mgr Lefebvre. Je suis demeuré professeur à Ecône jusqu'en septembre 1977 : date à laquelle j'ai
prêché la retraite de rentrée du Séminaire - J'ai été congédié peu de temps après. On m'a même refusé de venir visiter
les frères Dominicains que Mgr Lefebvre avait acceptés à Ecône au titre d'étudiants. Motif de cette exclusion : j'avais ex-
posé plusieurs fois en "cercles privés" (intra muros), et j'avais fait, au cours d'une leçon publique, une allusion parfaite-
ment claire à la "thèse".


- From an article of Fr. Giuseppe Murro on Fr. Guérard's life with some correspondence between Bp. Lefebvre and Fr. Guérard:

"R.P. Guérard et Mgr Lefebvre
En remerciement du bien qu'il leur avait fait, il fut abandonné par tous. Citons comme exemple, la lettre de Mgr.
Lefebvre dans laquelle il expliquait pourquoi il ne voulait pas que le Père revînt à Ecône, pas même pour rendre visite à
un groupe de jeunes auxquels il avait donné l'habit et qu'il avait dirigés vers le séminaire d'Ecône pour leurs études
(bienheureuses confiance et simplicité !) sans même imaginer que l'on y ferait tout pour les détacher de lui :
« Cher Révérend Père, .... l'unique motif qui me cause quelque appréhension c'est l'absolu de vos affirmations
au sujet du Pape et éventuellement du N.O.M.
Ma pensée est moins affirmative. J'ai émis et j'émets encore des doutes sur le Pape Paul VI. Je me demande en
effet comment un Pape peut à ce point contribuer à 1'autodémolition de l' Église, mais cela me permet-il d'affirmer
qu'il n'est pas Pape ? Je n'ose pas le dire d'une manière absolue et définitive.
... Si vous avez l'évidence de la déchéance juridique du Pape Paul VI, je comprends votre logique subséquente,
mais personnellement j'ai un doute sérieux et non une évidence absolue ...
... Dans l'attitude pratique, ce n'est pas 1'inexistance du Pape qui fonde ma conduite, mais la défense de ma foi
catholique ... Or vous croyez en conscience devoir partir de ce principe qui malheureusement jette le trouble et cause
des divisions violentes, ce que je tiens à éviter ...
Voilà en quelques mots ma pensée, qui n'est pas bien loin de la vôtre, mais qui dans la conduite tient davantage
compte des réalités aussi bien traditionalistes que progressistes... »
La réponse du Père Guérard fut claire et cohérente (7/2/79) :
« En ce qui concerne le Pape Paul VI, je n’ai pas l'évidence de la déchéance juridique, mais j'ai, et il y a, évidence
métaphysique et théologale que si la plus haute Autorité de l' Église reprend une doctrine traditionnelle déjà définie,
ladite Autorité jouit ipso facto de l'assistance immédiate du Saint Esprit. Et si ladite Autorité fonde une Déclaration
expressément sur l'autorité de l'Ecriture, alors ipso facto elle doit déclarer infailliblement la vérité.
Si ce n'est pas évident, daignez me montrer où est la faille.
Et si c'est évident, alors l’« autorité » qui a affirmé une erreur était en fait ontologiquement inapte à exercer
l'Autorité.
Je n'ai jamais dit que pour autant il y eut déchéance juridique de l’« Autorité ». Paul VI est demeuré pape
materialiter. Il ne l'était plus (au moins à partir du 7/12/65) formaliter ...
II est impossible qu'une profanation sacrilège de la vérité se soit ingérée dans l' Église qui est sainte. Déclarer
explicitement que Vatican II, en tant que Concile, n'est pas « d' Église », n'existe pas en tant que Concile, est une
condition sine qua non pour rétablir l’ordre dans l' Église. Il peut y avoir une interprétation traditionnelle des vérités
contenues dans Vatican II. Mais il n'y a aucune interprétation traditionnelle possible de Vatican II en tant que Concile.
Puisque, très précisément à ce point de vue, Vatican II opère une rupture de la Tradition.
Vous précisez que « votre conduite est fondée, non sur l'inexistence du pape mais sur la foi catholique ». Mais je
ne vois pas, dans l' Église catholique romaine, qu’on puisse témoigner en faveur de la Foi, sans se situer avec exactitude
par rapport au Magistère tel qu'il est (ou paraît être) actuellement.
L'existence d'un Magistère infaillible, et qui affirme de lui-même qu'il est infaillible, cette existence est une
condition sine qua non pour exercer la Foi, aussi bien au point de vue théorétique qu’au point de vue pratique ...
Vous ajoutez, Monseigneur, que « vous tenez compte, davantage que moi, des réalités aussi bien traditionalistes
que progressistes ».
Mais enfin, convient-il de tenir compte du progressisme, si tant est qu'il soit une réalité ? Et vers quels témoins
va-t-on ? sinon vers ceux qui ne font pas acception des personnes et qui « enseignent la voie de Dieu selon la vérité »
(Marc 12. 14).
C'est « la vérité qui nous libérera » (Jean 8, 32) ; et elle seule. On ne peut pas résoudre une question qui concerne
la vérité par la « co-existence pacifique » dans une « pseudo- charité », ou par le silence qu'impose l'autorité. Cela, c'est le
procédé de l'église en déroute, procédé que suscite le « père du mensonge ».
« Béni soit celui qui vient au nom du Seigneur … si ceux-ci se taisent, les pierres crieront (Luc, 19,40). Bénie soit
la vérité. Il ne faut pas la taire, il faut la crier.
L'inexistence (relative) du Pape (formaliter n'est pas, selon moi, comme vous l'écrivez, un « principe ». C'est
l'inéluctable conséquence des faits observés ; et c'est, aussi bien pour témoigner de la Foi que pour administrer dans
l’Église les sacrements de la Foi, un indispensable présupposé.
Dans la charité de la vérité, veuillez agréer, …
Une telle lettre restera sans réponse.
Cette recherche de la vérité qui répudiait toute fausse charité, sentimentale ou intéressée, l'adhésion au vrai
objectif et rationnel, sera la cause du rejet de la part de beaucoup soit de la Thèse du Père, soit même de sa personne.
L'abbé Coache aura la ... délicatesse de faire parvenir au P. Guérard, le 29.1.1979, l'invitation à une réunion fixée pour le
22, soit cinq jours avant ! Critiqué par tous pour sa position, il n'obtint JAMAIS, de qui que ce soit une réponse logique
et précise à la thèse qu'il avait exposée.
Qui refuse la grâce s'enfonce davantage dans le péché : ainsi celui qui refuse la lumière de la vérité s'enfonce de
plus en plus dans les ténèbres de l'erreur. Et de fait c'est à cette époque que Mgr Lefebvre signa le « Communiqué aux
Associations S. Pie V » rédigé à Flavigny ensemble avec d'autres « chefs de file » du traditionalisme ; ils y affirmaient leur
attachement au « successeur de Pierre » malgré les graves reproches que l'on est en droit de lui faire (sic !) et ils
demandaient aux fidèles de se regrouper autour de « prêtres fidèles attachés a Rome et au successeur de Pierre ».
« Il est hérétique, contraire à l'instinct de la Foi - commente le P. Guérard - aberrant par rapport à toute la
Tradition de prétendre que l'on puisse, à fortiori que l'on doive, « demeurer attachés à un dit Successeur de Pierre » qui
profère habituellement l'hérésie, favorise en acte tout ce qui pourrait détruire l' Église, se refuse en fait à exercer comme
il se devrait le charisme d'infaillibilité ... en vue de condamner et d'extirper les gravissimes altérations de la Messe et du
Magistère ».
C'est toujours durant cette période que Mgr Lefebvre écrivit la fameuse lettre n° 16 aux Amis et Bienfaiteurs où
il mettait pratiquement à égalité la nouvelle « Messe » et la vraie Messe, qui suscita la réaction de ceux qui conservent la
Foi et provoqua la lettre ouverte du P. Guérard : « Monseigneur, nous ne voulons pas de cette paix » ; cela fit du bruit !
Les réactions à cette lettre ouverte furent nombreuses la distance entre le P. Guérard et le « monde » traditionaliste se fit
plus grande ; quant aux réponses doctrinales, comme d'habitude, il n'y en eut point ; rien que des attaques injurieuses.
Durant cette même année, le Père commença, pour la première fois, la publication de sa Thèse sur le Siège
formellement vacant dans les Cahiers de Cassiciacum: elle ne trouva toujours pas de réponse sérieuse, mais pas non plus
de personnes ayant le courage d'embrasser la vérité lorsqu'elle est assortie de sacrifices et d'humiliations"
.

- En English see this link: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTop ... iers01.htm.

Cordially


Sat May 05, 2012 2:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Gabriele, many thanks for this. I do not know French. If you do, can you tell me if the TIA translation is accurate?


Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Quote:
Pilate thinks he can save Christ by having recourse to Herod. He is doubly fooled: by expecting Jesus to be saved by those who want His death and by “becoming the friend of Herod” (Luke 23: 12).


Quote:
Your Excellency, in order to save the Mass that is the Mass, you put it on par with the “new mass,” in the name of the Religion that you profess. How can you imagine that, instructed by your example, those unstable and weak people who follow you rather than the Truth could restore the sense of the true Religion in a Church occupied by the “high priests” of the god of the Universe? One cannot sit at the same table with Satan. It is Hell that is paved with these good intentions that justify the means by their end, perpetrating a manifest evil under the illusion of doing a good.


These words are as true today as they were in 1979 when Father des Lauriers wrote them to Archbishop Lefebvre.


Sat May 05, 2012 8:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Gabriele, I just wanted to add that, after having read the article, I understand "why" now.


Sat May 05, 2012 8:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Gabriele, I just wanted to add that, after having read the article, I understand "why" now.

Well, I have read that article also, and I still don't understand the SSPX position...I mean WHY they hold to that seriously non-Catholic position, and WHY they are so adamantly against both SV and SI. :shock:

As Des Lauriers said, you cannot sit at the same table with Satan.

I simply do not understand their thinking on this matter. :cry:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat May 05, 2012 8:39 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The SSPX position
Ken,

They hold their position because they believe in the Catholic truth that the Church is essentially hierarchical, that she always has a hierarchy.

They fear and therefore are angry at sedevacantists because they see our position as endangering both the faith itself (for the reason above) and because historically sedevacantists have all too often been troublemakers and have shown themselves to be unstable and incapable of solid, consistent, prudent, action. Look around.

What needed to be done, ideally in the late 'sixties or early 'seventies at the latest, is sustained theological work to apply the eternal principles of ecclesiology to the contingent facts of our time. Da Silveira made a good start, with his book, but he didn't claim to have solved the problem, and in any case he only addressed the pope-heretic thesis, not the "problem of the Church" in toto. No other comparable books appeared. Nothing of the same solidity of sources, and seriousness of aproach, has been done. Therefore we lack an explanation of the crisis which will satisfy both sedeplenist and sedevacantist objections to the respective positions. Consequently we've seen the abortive beginnings of almost countless organisations, none of which has been founded on a cogent and complete theory which would account for all of the elements of the crisis. And we persist, lamentably and disgracefully, in attacking others' errors without offering them the necessary replacement truth.

This is why I wrote my own book, and I wish I had the time and resources to complete it and publish it, but even those I respect most who would ensure that it did not contain any gross theological error have not found the time to read it and offer criticisms. And frankly, I am pessimistic that it would be read by most of those who are in a position to make a difference, so that it is hard to find the motivation to work on it myself anyway. I asked a District Superior and a Bishop of the SSPX to read that chapter on Archbishop Lefebvre, received positive agreement, and then months passed and neither has read it, let alone given any comment. I cannot complain that men trained formally in philosophy, spirituality, and theology, are not motivated to read the work of a layman, but equally, for the same reason, I cannot think that there is any hope that my own voice will make a difference if I did put something into print. If they won't read a few pages about their own founder's views, they won't read a series of chapters on highly controversial theological subjects by an untrained layman.

So we need the educated clergy to do the necessary theological work, and they won't or can't. The hand of Providence is in this - clearly God could raise up a Bellarmine if He chose to do so. He doesn't choose to do so.

I suspect we're about to see a tsunami of bitterness over this "deal" between "rome" and the SSPX. It's all so completely depressing, all parties being naked and accusing the others of having no clothes. Anyway, I'll comment on that if and when something clear actually occurs. In the mean time we can wait and pray.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 07, 2012 6:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Gabriele, many thanks for this. I do not know French. If you do, can you tell me if the TIA translation is accurate?


It is useful to inform each other of things that we do not know.
I have read only the French version. If you have any doubts about some parts of the letter of Fr. Guérard I can check the correctness of the translation.


Mon May 07, 2012 7:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The SSPX position
John Lane wrote:
They fear and therefore are angry at sedevacantists because they see our position as endangering both the faith itself (for the reason above) and because historically sedevacantists have all too often been troublemakers and have shown themselves to be unstable and incapable of solid, consistent, prudent, action. Look around.


I think that the divisions between sedevacantists are due also by the same absence of the Authority in the Church. Without Shepherd the sheep of the flock are dispersed.


Mon May 07, 2012 8:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The SSPX position
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
They fear and therefore are angry at sedevacantists because they see our position as endangering both the faith itself (for the reason above) and because historically sedevacantists have all too often been troublemakers and have shown themselves to be unstable and incapable of solid, consistent, prudent, action. Look around.


I think that the divisions between sedevacantists are due also by the same absence of the Authority in the Church. Without Shepherd the sheep of the flock are dispersed.


Of course this is true for everybody, yet it does not explain nor excuse their instability and reputation as troublemakers. In my opinion, these men would have trouble surviving in any normal organization.


Mon May 07, 2012 3:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The SSPX position
Quote:
...because historically sedevacantists have all too often been troublemakers and have shown themselves to be unstable and incapable of solid, consistent, prudent, action. Look around.


If it is any consolation, I am here to tell you that the troublemakers are all over, and that the sedevacantists do not hold the market on them.

No matter which way you turn today, you will find the same kind of people - be it the conciliar church, the SSPX or the sedevacantists. They are all the same.

Since I have been around, the worst troublemakers are within the conciliar church, and I am here to tell you that they still control the dioceses and parishes even though they are in the minority. They have had fifty years of experience in their Alinsky-style methods and have them perfected. In my experience, they are the most vicious and vindictive of the whole lot of Catholics.


Mon May 07, 2012 5:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 8
New post Re: The SSPX position
Speaking of defending the sedevacantist thesis against the SSPX, I find it sad that most times I find myself defending established Church doctrine. As so many have pointed out, that is the fundamental problem with the SSPX, yet so many of the laity are hooked into believing them because the SSPX presents that their position is entirely based on orthodox interpretations of established doctrine.


Tue May 08, 2012 5:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Since I have been around, the worst troublemakers are within the conciliar church, and I am here to tell you that they still control the dioceses and parishes even though they are in the minority. They have had fifty years of experience in their Alinsky-style methods and have them perfected. In my experience, they are the most vicious and vindictive of the whole lot of Catholics.


I agree completely. Our poor priests have been constantly and terribly persecuted by those scum simply because they offer the Tridentine Mass and the other Sacraments for "those schismatics"...namely, us.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue May 08, 2012 4:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: The SSPX position
Has anyone come across the sedeplenist argument that Benedict is actually head of two churches? One Catholic, the other Conciliar.


Sat May 12, 2012 5:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The SSPX position
Ken Gordon wrote:
Lorraine wrote:
Since I have been around, the worst troublemakers are within the conciliar church, and I am here to tell you that they still control the dioceses and parishes even though they are in the minority. They have had fifty years of experience in their Alinsky-style methods and have them perfected. In my experience, they are the most vicious and vindictive of the whole lot of Catholics.


I agree completely. Our poor priests have been constantly and terribly persecuted by those scum simply because they offer the Tridentine Mass and the other Sacraments for "those schismatics"...namely, us.


I thought the reason you think you can rightly call these vicious and vindictive men "scum" is because they are not Catholics and actually enemies of true Catholics. When a "traditional" cleric acts this way they are usually protected from this type of "criticism."

I know there are troublemakers in the conciliar church, yet I can't see how the "conciliar troublemakers" are a greater evil to traditional Catholics then the "traditional troublemakers."


Sun May 13, 2012 12:15 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The SSPX position
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Lorraine wrote:
Since I have been around, the worst troublemakers are within the conciliar church, and I am here to tell you that they still control the dioceses and parishes even though they are in the minority. They have had fifty years of experience in their Alinsky-style methods and have them perfected. In my experience, they are the most vicious and vindictive of the whole lot of Catholics.

I agree completely. Our poor priests have been constantly and terribly persecuted by those scum simply because they offer the Tridentine Mass and the other Sacraments for "those schismatics"...namely, us.

I thought the reason you think you can rightly call these vicious and vindictive men "scum" is because they are not Catholics and actually enemies of true Catholics.

Yes.

Robert Bastaja wrote:
When a "traditional" cleric acts this way they are usually protected from this type of "criticism."

By whom?

Robert Bastaja wrote:
I know there are troublemakers in the conciliar church, yet I can't see how the "conciliar troublemakers" are a greater evil to traditional Catholics then the "traditional troublemakers."

Less.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun May 13, 2012 3:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The SSPX position
Lorraine wrote:
Since I have been around, the worst troublemakers are within the conciliar church, and I am here to tell you that they still control the dioceses and parishes even though they are in the minority. They have had fifty years of experience in their Alinsky-style methods and have them perfected. In my experience, they are the most vicious and vindictive of the whole lot of Catholics.


Then it's absolutely no consolation to point to conciliar troublemakers when the topic of sedevacantist troublemakers is mentioned. It's a diversion created by the "whom" who defend the troublemakers.


Sun May 13, 2012 4:19 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.