D
dizzy_dave
Guest
I am looking for books that refute the SSPX. The only one I have found is “More Catholic than the Pope.” by Peter Vere and Patrick Madrid. Are there any others? If so what are they? Thanks.
- Status
B
BobP123
Guest
I was on the same mailing list as Peter Vere once and know he used some very persuasive arguments against the SSPX. But the situation was different in 1988 than it is today with the SSPX (Canon Law has been clarified, the bishops are talking with the Pope and accepting him as their leader, etc.) so please take all such arguments in perspective.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
I cannot think of any others off the top of my head, but I have read the book and enjoyed it. Saying that, more needs to be written on this and on the other side of the spectrum.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
Do not worry about refuting the SSPX, they are not outside the Church. According to Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos they are not in formal schism. The Bishops are currently excommunicated, the Priest are not however, only suspended. In other words, to refute them would be to refute the Roman Curia.
B
bear06
Guest
Here are some websites for you. Not too many books dealing with the subject but there are many websites (Pete’s included). Many of these websites are run by ex-SSPX, TLM loving folks.
jloughnan.tripod.com/ (owned by CAF forum member)
sspx-schism.com/main.htm
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/
tcrnews2.com/
catholic-legate.com/
lidless-eye.blogspot.com/
rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/
matt1618.freeyellow.com/TRADIT.html
B
bear06
Guest
Where’s the logic here? Obviously if some are suspended and some are excommunicated, there is definitely something to refute.
R
rescath
Guest
There is no valid refutation of the SSPX.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
Who will you persecute after the canonical situation is regularized with the SSPX? Will it be the Jesuits, the Dominicans, Rome herself? This can not be a productive discussion, only because of the Vaticans present stand on the issue. There is no reason to continue any discussion on the refutation of the SSPX, only prayer that the schismatic element within will repent and the Bishops will make the effort to bring the entire organization under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. I am not in any way connected to the SSPX, but I can not help but feel this argument only hurts Church. Our Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger admired Archbishop Lefevbre. They are not in formal schism, so says Rome. Their canonical situation is irregular, but they are within the Church.
B
bear06
Guest
So you buy everything they say hook, line and sinker?
G
gorman64
Guest
Do you buy everything a blogger says…hook, line and sinker?
R
rescath
Guest
One common misconception about SSPX is that it’s something entirely monolithic. There are a range of opinions among their priests and among the faithful who attend their chapels. Even their bishops disagree on a number of things. Rarely do you see anything that amounts to what would be an official position statement. And that just goes with the territory, since you don’t really have real exertion of authority in this modernist vacuum. We’re in an Ecclesiastical free-for-all, frankly. So who is “they”?
You can try to split hairs, but the point of this thread is obviously regarding their general relationship with the Novus Ordo hierarchy – i.e. recognize their legitimacy but hold to Traditional pre-Vatican II theology and discipline.
B
bear06
Guest
Why don’t you start on their national website? Next, you can move on to their heirarchy, Lefebvre, Williamson, et. al. They can’t even agree with each other and half of the time they can’t agree with themselves. So yes, I maintain that there is a lot to be refuted. Heck, Lefebvre spent some time refuting himself.:hypno:
Sorry but I feel that they have some serious issues with the “pre-Vatican II theology” of Pastor Aeternus. You can say you are obedient and submissive all you like but there’s something about walking and talking like a duck…
And Gorman…It would depend on the blogger.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
You just compared the SXXP to bloggers…I would say some bloggers and the SXXP have a lot in common.Do you buy everything a blogger says…hook, line and sinker?
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
If that was true, they would be similar to FSSP or Institute of Christ the King. But they are not.
R
rescath
Guest
My response was to your question about whether I agree EVERYTHING “they” say. One cannot agree with EVERYthing “they” say when “they” themselves do not agree amongst themselves with EVERYthing. For me to agree with everything would involve my holding contrary opinions at the same time. Get it?
Obey WHAT? Vatican has admitted Tridentine Mass was never abrogated. Most of the abuses rejected by SSPX have NEVER been MANDATED by the Vatican; in fact many of them have been denounced by the Vatican but their disapproval was never enforced. Vatican II defined NOTHING new – and nothing with the note of infallibility (Paul VI stated that himself, and “Pastor Aeternus” stipulated quite clearly that the intention of the pope is crucial in terms of teaching ex cathedra)
[Edited by Moderator]
Or how they non-chalantly declare SSPX schismatic for not submissively accepting every word of the pope, for being more Catholic than the pope as it were, while at the same time ignoring statements from the Vatican which clearly state SSPX not to be schismatic. To declare the SSPX schismatic for knowing better than the Vatican ironically puts you in a position of thinking that you know better than the Vatican – and, ergo, you must accuse yourself of schism as well. Read the theological definition of schism, please; schism involves not only separation / rejection of communion with the pope but also of communion with those who are in union with the pope. Since the Vatican – acting with delegated papal authority – has declared SSPX part of the Church, I hereby accuse all those who refuse communion with them and who declare them to be in schism THEMSELVES to be in schism rather than SSPX.
Just read here to understand what really happened at V2 –
devilsfinalbattle.com/content2.htm
You can’t read that book and not become a Traditional Catholic – if you have any true sensus Catholicus
R
rescath
Guest
And thank God they are not – compromisers with the modernist theology emanating from the Vatican, engaging themselves in a Hegelian dialect with those errors.
G
gorman64
Guest
No, actually I didn’t compare anything. I just made a comment based on the list bear06 provided.You just compared the SXXP to bloggers…I would say some bloggers and the SXXP have a lot in common.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
You obviously don’t know the organization you are persecuting. Archbishop Lefebvre died years ago. The same duck analogy can be turned on modernist as well. If it walks like a heretic and talks like a heretic it must be a heretic. I’m not saying any one person, group of people or anything fits that bill, that is up to God to determine, same goes for the SSPX. It isn’t up to you to determine if they are right or wrong. If you are right, you have nothing to worry about. [Edited by Moderator]Why don’t you start on their national website? Next, you can move on to their heirarchy, Lefebvre, Williamson, et. al.
Sorry but I feel that they have some serious issues with the “pre-Vatican II theology” of Pastor Aeternus. You can say you are obedient and submissive all you like but there’s something about walking and talking like a duck…
And Gorman…It would depend on the blogger.
I don’t say this to support the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre likely made a mistake in consecrating Bishops without papal mandate, but we aren’t to judge that. Their are some who attend the SSPX chapels whose views border on sedevacantism, this is sad and terribly sinful.
Let us not forget that H.H. Pope St. Pius X warned us of modernist errors that were coming of age in the early 20th century, only to be fully realized and entrenched in our society by the beginning of the 21st. We were warned and refused to listen and heed the words of the Saints. We as a society will pay a horrible price for that. Just look at the abortion situation today. 40,000,000 innocent babies killed annually. In 4 years that is the population of the US. How on Gods earth can we allow that? Some 34 years ago, 7 years before I was born, we made it legal to murder innocent children. Two years ago a precedent was set allowing euthanasia of comatose, but otherwise healthy adults. What next? Where did it start? I don’t think we know, besides it doesn’t belong in this thread.
In summary, the SSPX does not need refuting. The Vatican is making efforts to regularize the canonical situation and in due time I believe we will see just that. The arguments about the changes made post Vatican 2 will be made, just try to make them constructive. The council was, regardless of what anyone says, divinely inspired and lead by the Holy Ghost(Spirit) and though the implementation has left much to be desired, He[the Holy Ghost] will see it through to the end. H.H. Pope Paul VI(R.I.P.), H.H. Pope John Paul II(R.I.P) and H.H. Pope Benedict XVI are all Sovereign Pontiffs duly elected by the college of Cardinals and lead by the Holy Ghost as the Vicar of Christ.
B
bear06
Guest
B
bear06
Guest
My response was to your question about whether I agree EVERYTHING “they” say. One cannot agree with EVERYthing “they” say when “they” themselves do not agree amongst themselves with EVERYthing. For me to agree with everything would involve my holding contrary opinions at the same time. Get it?
My friend, you said there was no valid refutation of the SSPX. There is much that they have put forth that can be refuted. It would seem to be obvious that if you don’t agree with everything that you can refute them.
- Status