For the SSPXers: Men mess up, the Holy Spirit NEVER does!

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gelsbern wrote:
Do I believe they exist? Yes, is that against the teachings of the Church? Nope
Click to expand...
Giving a source
worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexd.shtml
which attributes ancient and other “virgin births” to the carnal intercourse of incubi and succubi.

Well, it really doesn’t matter whether you also believe that there are fairies in the bottom of the garden: this also is not against the teachings of the Church - which is the “logic” upon which you depend.
Pope Pius’ Bull was an infallible teaching in faith. Period
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhh - which Pius and which Bull are you referring to?

The teaching of the Church is contained in the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Would you please advise where the Church Teaching on Incubbi and succubi is in Denzinger’s? I have looked under Pope Innocent VIII - none of HIS Bulls have been listed therein.
What are the fruits of the modernits ridden Church? Empty Seminaries, Cowtowing to the laity, abuse by clergy.
Click to expand...
There has always been dissent following General Councils. It took over 100 years for the Council of Trent to be fully accepted in France.
What are the fruits of those who hold to the tradition? Full Seminaries, a truly sanctifying Mass and no abuse by clergy.
Click to expand...
Good riddance to the bad priests formed prior to the Vatican II Council and following the post vatican II era. Thank God for the wonderful priests emerging from the seminaries of today - I speak of the seminaries in Australia for example.

Yes, “traditional” Catholics are coming from such as the CMRI Thucite sedevacantists; from the SSPX ( which also looses massive numbers from its ranks to sedevgacantism and in reverts to the Catholic Church under the Pope. Schismatic and excommunicated 'traditionalists" such as The Little Pebble in Australia and elsewhere now have two Thucite “bishops” and c. 20 priests (some of whom are married); they DO say the old Latin Mass, however!

But, all these things are irritating side issues.

Whenever anyone denies that the Pauline Mass is a “propitiary sacrifice” he defies the anathema of Canon III of the same Council of Trent.

Anyone who saith that the canon of the Mass (including the Pauline Mass) contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated"; is anathematized by Canon VIII.

The Mass of Paul VI is the self-same Mass of Christ at the Last Supper and throughout the varying liturgies and Rites from then to now.

The Mass of Paul VI is GUARANTEED by the Holy Spirit to be a “true and proper sacrifice” as defined in Canon 1 of the Council of Trent On the Sacrifice of the Mass. Anyone denying this is subject to the anathema of Canon 1 (if they are of the mind to believe that the anathemas still exist!)

I am NOT against the Indult Latin Mass - I attended the Latin Mass for over 53 of my 70 years. I am a Traditionalist (capital “T”) who adheres to Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the living Magisterium.

God bless Pope John Paul II - todays Suffering Servant, Vicar of Christ.
 
Amen Sean, my words almost exactly!👍

Whenever rad-trads come up with an argument against the New Mass or Vatican II, there always seems to be a stronger counter argument out there.

If they only read and pondered Ecclesia Dei, or accepted it as authoritative. But alas they won’t since many of them see JPII either as a modernist heretic, or as one who doesn’t understand the canon law of the very Catholic Church he leads…

However here is the document if anyone is at all interested: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
40.png
gelsbern:
What are the fruits of the modernits ridden Church? Empty Seminaries, Cowtowing to the laity, abuse by clergy.

What are the fruits of those who hold to the tradition? Full Seminaries, a truly sanctifying Mass and no abuse by clergy.
Click to expand...
Our seminary is not empty. I know of no priest who has ever towed a cow for the laity.

As far as the abuse by laity, you are helping the work on the anit-Christian media in this country. Either that are you are easily duped by them. There is in every group a small percentage who abuse their office in one way are another. Surely you do not think that prior to Vatican II no priest ever committed crimes against his parishoners.

It was the priestly abuse that also caused Martin Luther to rebel against the Church. That was pre-Vatican II. There will always be an excuse to dismiss authority for those inclined to do so.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Our seminary is not empty. I know of no priest who has ever towed a cow for the laity.

As far as the abuse by laity, you are helping the work on the anit-Christian media in this country. Either that are you are easily duped by them. There is in every group a small percentage who abuse their office in one way are another. Surely you do not think that prior to Vatican II no priest ever committed crimes against his parishoners.

It was the priestly abuse that also caused Martin Luther to rebel against the Church. That was pre-Vatican II. There will always be an excuse to dismiss authority for those inclined to do so.
Click to expand...
Yeah you’re right, the seminaries aren’t empty there’s furniture and air in the seminaries. What I was talking about was the lack of seminarians.

As far as abuse, I probably should have been more specific, however if I would have been implying the sexual scandal in the church, I would have referred to it as such. The abuse I am talking about is the liturgical abuse and the disobedience to Rome from priests and bishops who are in so called “communion” with the mother Church. Abuse of the indults for EMHC’s and Altar Girls, disobedience in rubrics for various rites. The list is huge and if you read through the forums you will find plenty of “fruits” of the modernism that is a blight upon the Church.

This whole thread though is ridiculous, all of you “good” catholics are willing to show more charity to the protestant down the street who is a definite heretic and schimatics, than you show to the SSPX who are devoutly Catholic whether you think so or not.

I wonder how you would have all dealt with a pope that had turned to Arianism, if you would have followed him wuth unquestioning obedience with your blinders on like you do with JP II.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I wonder how you would have all dealt with a pope that had turned to Arianism, if you would have followed him wuth unquestioning obedience with your blinders on like you do with JP II.
Click to expand...
Obedience does not require one to be unquestioning or blind, just humble.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by abuse. I, too, would not like to the liturgy abused, but have seldom seen any.
 
T.N.T. You wrote, “3. I love the SSPX as people, as Tradionalists, as lovers of God and superior teachers of the Apostolic Faith.
4. BUT their Masses do NOT meet the Sunday Obligation.”
Please tell me why you said TLM does not meet Sunday Obligation.

For you to say that then you have said all of us who attended Mass back in the 1960s really didn’t attend Mass. In the 1960s all Masses were Latin Masses.
 
40.png
Exporter:
T.N.T. You wrote, “3. I love the SSPX as people, as Tradionalists, as lovers of God and superior teachers of the Apostolic Faith.
4. BUT their Masses do NOT meet the Sunday Obligation.”
Please tell me why you said TLM does not meet Sunday Obligation.

For you to say that then you have said all of us who attended Mass back in the 1960s really didn’t attend Mass. In the 1960s all Masses were Latin Masses.
Click to expand...
I’ll take a stab at this.

He is not saying that the TLM doesn’t meet the Sunday obligation, he is saying attendance at an SSPX Mass doesn’t meet the obligation. In order to meet the obligation, one must go to a church that is in communion with Rome, which would include churches that offer the Indult Mass which is a TLM.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I’ll take a stab at this.

He is not saying that the TLM doesn’t meet the Sunday obligation, he is saying attendance at an SSPX Mass doesn’t meet the obligation. In order to meet the obligation, one must go to a church that is in communion with Rome, which would include churches that offer the Indult Mass which is a TLM.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU.
We must have had the same English teacher.
 
Stick around long enough, Eddie, and you will find that SSPX is just as guilty -if not moreso- of liturgical and other abuses as the loyal church currently is. It is the nature of man to err.

You use an ad hominem argument (with pictures) to further your distancing from the discussion. The SSPX is in schism, no matter how “traditional” they are. Show clown pictures all you want. It doesn’t alter the basic reality that Lefevre and Co. directly disobeyed the Pope.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
In other words;
Click to expand...
What you either fail to grasp or admit is that the pope has spoken out about abuses in the liturgy, about respect for the Eucharist, about the commitment of priests and deacons and catechists to their work often and long. He has made it clear that the church is to offer a liturgy which honors God and brings the congregations closer to a relationship with Him.

On a consistent basis you find every wrong in the church as Cardinal Arinze puts it and “wail all day” - you do not find any right in the church. You might ask yourself why you continue to habituate a faith who you feel has fallen so short of your expectations. Are your expectations realistic? Or are they just what you’re “used to” and want to keep?

In all fairness to the pope you must acknowledge that his stand against the extreme right by declaring them as schismatics is both under his authority and those who continue to attend their services and carry water for them in this and other forums is a diservice to both the Holy Father and their own church. It is fine to critique the left, and to point out abuses, it is another thing to run around ignoring all the good priests, the good liturgies, the hard working deacons and catechists who are trying to do the job of repairing the damage done by activist dissidents.

Actually perhaps we need to ask ourselves, what do we contribute to the solution of the problems we see — or do we just complain and wait for “someone else” to do it? Are we as fair in our praise as we are in our ciriticisms? Do we understand what we read or do we just parrot what seems to affirm what we think in the first place? It is a hard thing to do – to look at oneself critically - but we are all called to do it. And that’s why we say mea culpa, mea culpa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top