Catholics vs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter HenryV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problems with the Novus Ordo are legion:
  1. CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE CONSECRATION TO WORDS JESUS NEVER SAID. Ouch.
  2. Turned the Sacrifice of Calvary into a Protestant meal
  3. Turned Catholic Altars into Protestant tables
  4. Destroys Catholic Priesthood by allowing just about anyone to become a ‘Eucharistic Minister’
  5. etc, etc, etc…
**You had me at number #1!!!:bigyikes: **
So your priest says the words of institution in Aramaic, then?

The words of institution are translations in both the TLM and NO.

And while the Words of Institution are important, they are not required for validity of an Anaphora; the Anaphora of Addis and Mari, used within the Maronite Catholic Church is considered valid, and lacks completely the words of institution. Oh, and the Maronite Patriarch is a Catholic Cardinal, just for reference.
 
No, they didn’t. It took over 100 years for them to gradually adopt new beliefs and 3 centuries till Leo XIII declared them infallibly null as far as apostolic succession goes. Added to that the Church/State situation was far more politically enmeshed than today. Also, Vatican I had yet to be called where it placed definable limits on the Popes infallibility.
100 years for the English to realize they had broken with the Church? Seems to have caused Thomas More a bit of trouble right away. I’m guessing he understood the break, and the King sticking his head atop the London Bridge may have tipped a few others off, as well.
 
He never actually said they weren’t Catholic. He said their priests were suspended a divinis and asked why people would receive the Sacraments from them. It has little to do with clown masses. Not only would I not receive from them, I would attend them (unless, of course, I was there to videotape). People can’t excuse one group by pointing the finger at another.
I’'ve always understood that Catholics who attend an SSPX TLM may do so without impunity. The issues with SSPX proper are an internal Church matter for the Magesterium the work out not lay Catholic. I recomment reading the Bishops open letter at. sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint PiusX/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter2.htm
 
I’ve already said I’d be more inclined to believe it if it was found in Guitton’s own book.

That said, I find it quite funny that you extoll Guitton’s friendship and yet appear to be ignoring his “positive spin” on the statement. If he was so close, wouldn’t his perception be correct?

Anyways, yes, I have suspicions about this quote. It seems like such a quote would have been used a lot more.

No matter. It has little bearing on the conversation.
I found someone on AQ had transcribed the section. This is how it reads.

Page 57 & 58

Could it be that John XXIII and Paul VI were, like so many progressivist leaders, followers of a doctrine that preached the self immolation of the Church as a goal to be attained through the specific action of the Popes themselves?

It is a hypothesis whose elements, for the time being, are like a thin veil. However, like a fine covering, it can begin to be drawn away to reveal the real meaning of the enigmatic words of the Pontiffs, permitting a glimpse of an interpretation.

E. The Mysterious Relationship Between Vatican II and the Scourging of the Apocalypse

Finally, in an investigation of the intent of Paul VI with regard to the self destruction of the Church, one should note his words to writer Jean Guitton regarding the Council’s solemn closing ceremony. They are words also wrapped in an impenetrable mystery, but certainly not devoid of interest.

“It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which the Pope was to bestow upon all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, 'I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.” 21

But the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse herald great calamities for humanity, culminating in the end of the world (Apoc 8 9, 11:14 19). 22

Why would Paul VI have chosen such a tragic symbol to mark the legacy of Vatican II? Did he have a clear notion then of the process of self destruction that would be installed afterward in the Holy City?

Did he understand its immensity, such that he compared it to the chastisement foretold in Holy Scriptures?

Or was the mention of the trumpets of the Apocalypse a naive or unfortunate metaphor used by the Pontiff who failed to realize the final consequences that could be drawn from these words?

§ 19 Putting aside here the mysteries and considerations surrounding the hypothesis of a voluntary immolation of the Church and the Papacy, the main conclusion of this Item is clear: the self destruction of the Church was foreseen by Pius XII, initiated by John XXIII, and continued by Paul VI. Furthermore, Paul VI deliberately decided to make its existence public and notorious.

Footnotes

For more information on the progressivist doctrine of kenosis, see Chapter 11.

21 Jean Guitton, “Nei segno dei Dodici,” interview by Maurizio Blond Avvenire, October 11, 1992.

22 Soon after revealing this quote of Paul VI, Jean Guitton tried to temper its tragic aspect, He said, “The Apocalypse is a book filled with enigmas, but the final pages speak of the triumph of the Lamb of God. They speak of the triumph of the Church” (ibid.).

However, the French writer forgot that the trumpets do not appear in the “final pages” but in the middle of the Apocalypse. And even though the seventh and last trumpet refers to the end of the world and, in this sense, heralds the final judgment and the triumph of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the trumpets as a whole refer to the chastisements upon the earth inflicted by God on humanity. That is, the first four trumpets as a whole relate to the chastisements upon the earth, the oceans, the rivers and the heavenly bodies (Apoc 8 7 13); the fifth trumpet predicts the plague of grasshoppers (Apoc 91 13); the sixth prophesies an invasion of an army on horseback (Apoc 913 20); the seventh announces the end of the world, accompanied by lightning, earthquakes and great hailstorms (Apoc 11:19).
 
I thought we were discussng the promulgation of the mass. That’s not the pope speaking as just a private theologian.
The Liturgy is disciplinary and non-infallible. If the Pope isn’t binding the whole Church (Eastern rites included) it’s not infallible.
The Pope speaking as the Vicar of Christ and those united with him.
So, you are saying “the Church” invalidated Pope Formosus’ functions as Pope and later “the Church” reversed itself and “validated” Pope Formosus’s actions as Pope?
No, the Anglicans didn’t have to wait 100 years before they realized they weren’t in full communion with the Catholic Church!
A good number of them still don’t realize that they are not in communion. I passed by a High Anglican Church after JPII died and they had black bunting on the doors and offered “liturgies” for him.

Add to that the Anglican priests who have had “the Dutch Touch” given to them and you’ve got a real mess.
When King Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the Catholic Church in England, that should have been a big tip-off.
Why? You are viewing this through 21st century eyes.
And it was to many people – especially those who lost their lives because they refused to acknowledge the king as such.
And I’m sure there were many who secretly were loyal to Rome but put on a public face of loyalty to the King. (Probably thinking it was a temporary issue)
They did not have to go examining the liturgical changes of the following years to realize they weren’t in unity with the one Vicar of Christ.
Nonsense. They probably followed what would become the Vatican II line of various degrees of Communion.
That’s my point here – unity with Rome is our yardstick. That’s how we know when we’re Catholic and when we’re not.
That’s another slogan of the day. It’s meaningless unless you understand it. “unity” with Rome must include unity of faith and unity of sacraments along with submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Unfortunately we live in a day when Rome itself has obscured the meaning of these things in the name of ecumenism.

But you can’t be servile to a Pope that is leading people astray with his policies on ecumenism and be unified in the Catholic faith. When the Pope speaks with the voice of Peter and not just the administrator of the Church, you have to submit.
 
100 years for the English to realize they had broken with the Church? Seems to have caused Thomas More a bit of trouble right away. I’m guessing he understood the break, and the King sticking his head atop the London Bridge may have tipped a few others off, as well.
Do you seem to think everyone tuned into CNN to see these events? I’m amazed at how people view history by the standards of today, with the same expectations.

Nowadays people are already scratching their heads about how the older Catholic faithful allowed things to go so bad after Vatican II and why the Popes did so little.

You’d think with the history this Church has had that nothing should surprise us.
 
Do you seem to think everyone tuned into CNN to see these events? I’m amazed at how people view history by the standards of today, with the same expectations.

Nowadays people are already scratching their heads about how the older Catholic faithful allowed things to go so bad after Vatican II and why the Popes did so little.

You’d think with the history this Church has had that nothing should surprise us.
This argument is getting silly. Every Church and State official had to take the Oath of Succession that repudiated papal authority. More and the others that were executed were executed for refusing to do this. So, at a minimum, the Church officials knew they had broken with Rome. Do you suppose the laity didn’t know why More and the others were executed? Do you suppose none of those Sherriffs or priests mentioned to anyone that they had just renounced Rome and declared Henry the head of the Church? If so, how did they come to “realize” it 100 years later?
 
I’'ve always understood that Catholics who attend an SSPX TLM may do so without impunity. The issues with SSPX proper are an internal Church matter for the Magesterium the work out not lay Catholic. I recomment reading the Bishops open letter at. sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint PiusX/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter2.htm
I’m going to guess you mean with impunity and refrain from snickering. They can only do so with right intention. Without right intention, there is no impunity. I recommend reading the official Church teachings on the matter.
 
This argument is getting silly. Every Church and State official had to take the Oath of Succession that repudiated papal authority. More and the others that were executed were executed for refusing to do this. So, at a minimum, the Church officials knew they had broken with Rome. Do you suppose the laity didn’t know why More and the others were executed? Do you suppose none of those Sherriffs or priests mentioned to anyone that they had just renounced Rome and declared Henry the head of the Church? If so, how did they come to “realize” it 100 years later?
Moreover there are tons of Jesuit martyrs as well as diocesian priest martyrs in England following the Act of Supremacy.

Ever hear the protestant mumblings here in the US about how Jesuits want to overthrow the government… that comes from England when a few Jesuits were involved in a plot or two. So the English govt decided to label Jesuits as revolutionaries, backstabbers, traitors.

Tons of homes of Catholics in Elizabethian England had Priest Holes or places that Priests could hide from the authorities. Masses had to be said out in the woods in secrecy and silence.

Everyone knew they had broke from Rome.

Read about Guy Fauks, or Bloody Mary. When she came on the throne and made England Catholic again there were riots, violence, etc. People were upset about it.
 
I found someone on AQ had transcribed the section. This is how it reads.

Page 57 & 58

Could it be that John XXIII and Paul VI were, like so many progressivist leaders, followers of a doctrine that preached the self immolation of the Church as a goal to be attained through the specific action of the Popes themselves?

It is a hypothesis whose elements, for the time being, are like a thin veil. However, like a fine covering, it can begin to be drawn away to reveal the real meaning of the enigmatic words of the Pontiffs, permitting a glimpse of an interpretation.

E. The Mysterious Relationship Between Vatican II and the Scourging of the Apocalypse

Finally, in an investigation of the intent of Paul VI with regard to the self destruction of the Church, one should note his words to writer Jean Guitton regarding the Council’s solemn closing ceremony. They are words also wrapped in an impenetrable mystery, but certainly not devoid of interest.

“It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which the Pope was to bestow upon all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, 'I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.” 21

But the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse herald great calamities for humanity, culminating in the end of the world (Apoc 8 9, 11:14 19). 22

Why would Paul VI have chosen such a tragic symbol to mark the legacy of Vatican II? Did he have a clear notion then of the process of self destruction that would be installed afterward in the Holy City?

Did he understand its immensity, such that he compared it to the chastisement foretold in Holy Scriptures?

Or was the mention of the trumpets of the Apocalypse a naive or unfortunate metaphor used by the Pontiff who failed to realize the final consequences that could be drawn from these words?

§ 19 Putting aside here the mysteries and considerations surrounding the hypothesis of a voluntary immolation of the Church and the Papacy, the main conclusion of this Item is clear: the self destruction of the Church was foreseen by Pius XII, initiated by John XXIII, and continued by Paul VI. Furthermore, Paul VI deliberately decided to make its existence public and notorious.

Footnotes

For more information on the progressivist doctrine of kenosis, see Chapter 11.

21 Jean Guitton, “Nei segno dei Dodici,” interview by Maurizio Blond Avvenire, October 11, 1992.

22 Soon after revealing this quote of Paul VI, Jean Guitton tried to temper its tragic aspect, He said, “The Apocalypse is a book filled with enigmas, but the final pages speak of the triumph of the Lamb of God. They speak of the triumph of the Church” (ibid.).

However, the French writer forgot that the trumpets do not appear in the “final pages” but in the middle of the Apocalypse. And even though the seventh and last trumpet refers to the end of the world and, in this sense, heralds the final judgment and the triumph of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the trumpets as a whole refer to the chastisements upon the earth inflicted by God on humanity. That is, the first four trumpets as a whole relate to the chastisements upon the earth, the oceans, the rivers and the heavenly bodies (Apoc 8 7 13); the fifth trumpet predicts the plague of grasshoppers (Apoc 91 13); the sixth prophesies an invasion of an army on horseback (Apoc 913 20); the seventh announces the end of the world, accompanied by lightning, earthquakes and great hailstorms (Apoc 11:19).
Thanks for putting so much work into quoting this. That said, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to find it in Guitton’s own memoirs of his conversations with the Holy Father written a few years after the Council. Maybe someone who has read Guitton’s book can shed some light on it. I still have trouble believe this comment made almost 30 years after the close of the council would only be found in this interview if it was factual. Like I said, it would seem anti-Vatican II people would be constantly singing this one from the rooftops and their not.🤷

BTW, for those who really want to know Paul VI’s motives, this sounds like it might be a good book for you.
amazon.com/Pope-speaks-Dialogues-Paul-Guitton/dp/0297763288/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195585059&sr=8-3 That said, I’m sure some would rather sit around and speculate to their hearts content.
 
Thanks for putting so much work into quoting this. That said, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to find it in Guitton’s own memoirs of his conversations with the Holy Father written a few years after the Council. Maybe someone who has read Guitton’s book can shed some light on it. I still have trouble believe this comment made almost 30 years after the close of the council would only be found in this interview if it was factual. Like I said, it would seem anti-Vatican II people would be constantly singing this one from the rooftops and their not.🤷

BTW, for those who really want to know Paul VI’s motives, this sounds like it might be a good book for you.
amazon.com/Pope-speaks-Dialogues-Paul-Guitton/dp/0297763288/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195585059&sr=8-3 That said, I’m sure some would rather sit around and speculate to their hearts content.
Bear…

Everyone knows that the Freemasons and the Pentavirate have conspired to keep this comment hidden and suppressed so that they could enact the modernist plan of Vatican II. Look at the cover-up over Guitton’s mysterious death!!!
 
Bear…

Everyone knows that the Freemasons and the Pentavirate have conspired to keep this comment hidden and suppressed so that they could enact the modernist plan of Vatican II. Look at the cover-up over Guitton’s mysterious death!!!
:rotfl: Where have you been lately?!
 
The Liturgy is disciplinary and non-infallible. If the Pope isn’t binding the whole Church (Eastern rites included) it’s not infallible.
I think you’re confused about the difference between infallibility and indefectibility and the authority of the pope. Here’s a good summary of the declarations on the First Vatican Council in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
" The most important matter of the Constitution is the last two chapters. In the third chapter the meaning and nature of the primacy are set forth in clear words. The primacy of the Pope of Rome is no mere precedence of honour. On the contrary, the pope possesses the primacy of regularly constituted power over all other Churches, and the true, direct, episcopal power of jurisdiction, in respect to which the clergy and faithful of every rite and rank are bound to true obedience."
So, you are saying “the Church” invalidated Pope Formosus’ functions as Pope and later “the Church” reversed itself and “validated” Pope Formosus’s actions as Pope?
I’m not sure exactly what actions you’re referring to, but there was controversy over Pope Formosus’ claim to the papacy, not his authority to promulgate liturgy. That was never an issue.

I’m not going to go into your comments on the Anglicans. If you believe that somehow they never realized that they were subjecting themselves to the King instead of the Pope as head of the Church, fine. History has shown that a number of them gave their freedom or their lives to remain in communion with the pope. This was BEFORE Pope Leo had proclaimed the invalidity of their priests and mass.
But you can’t be servile to a Pope that is leading people astray with his policies on ecumenism and be unified in the Catholic faith. When the Pope speaks with the voice of Peter and not just the administrator of the Church, you have to submit.
No, Vatican I teaches that we must submit to the Pope as administrator also.
 
Thanks for putting so much work into quoting this. That said, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to find it in Guitton’s own memoirs of his conversations with the Holy Father written a few years after the Council. Maybe someone who has read Guitton’s book can shed some light on it. I still have trouble believe this comment made almost 30 years after the close of the council would only be found in this interview if it was factual. Like I said, it would seem anti-Vatican II people would be constantly singing this one from the rooftops and their not.🤷
I think there is little doubt that the revision of history with regard to Vatican II has already begun. And I’m sure it will intensify as the last of those who were actually there die off and are no longer there to defend what actually happened.
 
I think there is little doubt that the revision of history with regard to Vatican II has already begun. And I’m sure it will intensify as the last of those who were actually there die off and are no longer there to defend what actually happened.
I didn’t even realize that this was published after Guitton’s death. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
I didn’t even realize that this was published after Guitton’s death. Thanks for pointing that out.
There is a book that has details on Archbishop Lefevbre. Apparently, before he died he told one of his closest and completely trustworthy associates:
“I can’t believe how much I screwed this one up! Now we’re all excommunicated! Great…If that wasn’t bad enough, I actually made Williamson a bishop!!! Mark my words, before long that guy will be ordaining aliens!..Quick, bring me a phone. I need to call the Holy Fathe…”
 
I think you’re confused about the difference between infallibility and indefectibility and the authority of the pope. Here’s a good summary of the declarations on the First Vatican Council in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
" The most important matter of the Constitution is the last two chapters. In the third chapter the meaning and nature of the primacy are set forth in clear words. The primacy of the Pope of Rome is no mere precedence of honour. On the contrary, the pope possesses the primacy of regularly constituted power over all other Churches, and the true, direct, episcopal power of jurisdiction, in respect to which the clergy and faithful of every rite and rank are bound to true obedience."
That’s quote is exactly right and I’ve taken the liberty of emphasizing the use of the word “true” before obedience.

And Mr. Christian would normally give true obedience to Captain Bligh but when the Captain goes too far out of the realm of moral behavior, he must be resisted. (based on the dubious examples of the films and books )
I’m not sure exactly what actions you’re referring to, but there was controversy over Pope Formosus’ claim to the papacy, not his authority to promulgate liturgy. That was never an issue.
There was no controversy over Formosus’ claim to the papacy.
It was the fraudulant actions of Pope Stephen against Formosus that demonstrate the major faults in treating all papal declarations as irresistible.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber.
And that’s not where it ended. The decisions of the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ the Supreme Pontiff, the Servant of the Servants of God were overturned back and forth for many years.
In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter’s. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). **On the other hand **Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen’s synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him
 
No, Vatican I teaches that we must submit to the Pope as administrator also.
So are you claiming that the Deacon who was appointed by Pope Stephen to provide responses for the corpse of Pope Formosus was doing God-pleasing work by obeying that administrative order?

Do you think he would have been unjustified in disobeying such a horrendous order as that?
 
There is a book that has details on Archbishop Lefevbre. Apparently, before he died he told one of his closest and completely trustworthy associates:
Stop! Now there’s water all over my keyboard. Thankfully I bought the waterproof model last time just for these occasions. You’re on a roll today, my friend. :rotfl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top