FSSP and SSPX

[VetA]

I hope so; to listen to the SSPX’s biggest critics around here, it’s still 1988

Amen! At my church, sermons do lean a little towards what I in my pagan days would call a “fluffy bunny” approach.

In pagan circles, a “fluffy bunny” is someone who promotes a severely candy-coated interpretation of X pagan religion (mostly this applies to Wiccan groups, but I digress) where there is no evil, nothing is wrong, no one should be held to any standards, and everything must be as feel-good and inoffensive as possible. Frankly, the term is applicable to the post-conciliar Church in so many ways, in the most Novus Ordo of parishes. All we hear about today from so many priests and other Catholics is how much God loves us and all too little about what He wants from us, especially when it comes to avoiding sin.

Just like how real bunnies tear up your garden, the fluffy-bunny, post-conciliar Catholics are tearing up the Church. I pray to God it will not go on much more; thank God for groups like the SSPX and their defense of tradition!

the jesuit priest that said one of the TLMs ive been to gave a sermon about how God’s love is not unconditional. gave specific scripture quotes to back it up too, it really makes sense when you think about it, not fluffy bunny

 

[iluvburpees]

Driving down the the road today there was a railroad track running parallel to me. I passed a train going the same way I was. This does not logically mean I was leading the train in any sense of the word.

If the SSPX wants postitions of leadership in the Catholic Church, they first need to get on board completely. That is step one. Hopefully these talks will result in a regularization of their status. Then, by all means, let them stick to their core beliefs, maintain obedience to the Church and let us see where the Holy Spirit leads.

The SSPX is not going to compromise with the liberals to get “into” the Church. They are the ones who are truly in the Church. The FSSP did that a while ago, and it was an incredibly hypocritical thing to have done.

It’s ironic how Novus Ordo Catholics talk about “obedience” when they apparently don’t know what it means. The Faith is a supernatural virtue, and is therefore higher than obedience, a moral virtue, which is good ONLY when done for love of God. If the pope tells me to murder someone, I won’t do it. That is disobedience, but lawful disobedience, because the FAITH is higher than obedience. So, the Archbishop disobeyed the pope after doing everything possible to secure bishops to continue his good work, and Rome refused to help him. They were, instead, waiting for him to drop dead so that the SSPX would be out of their business of ecumenism and all their other nonsense. Therefore, the Archbishop was keeping and preserving the FAITH over obedience, even obedience to the Holy Father.

It’s sick how people call the Archbishop various insulting and disrespectful things. While the pope was at Assisi getting blessed by witch doctors, watching almost naked girls dance, allowing statues of idols on the altar, and other incredible things, the Archbishop was simply trying to preserve the Faith of Christ.

The Last Judgment will reveal many more surprises than most think.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The SSPX is not going to compromise with the liberals to get “into” the Church. They are the ones who are truly in the Church. The FSSP did that a while ago, and it was an incredibly hypocritical thing to have done.

It’s ironic how Novus Ordo Catholics talk about “obedience” when they apparently don’t know what it means. The Faith is a supernatural virtue, and is therefore higher than obedience, a moral virtue, which is good ONLY when done for love of God. If the pope tells me to murder someone, I won’t do it. That is disobedience, but lawful disobedience, because the FAITH is higher than obedience. So, the Archbishop disobeyed the pope after doing everything possible to secure bishops to continue his good work, and Rome refused to help him. They were, instead, waiting for him to drop dead so that the SSPX would be out of their business of ecumenism and all their other nonsense. Therefore, the Archbishop was keeping and preserving the FAITH over obedience, even obedience to the Holy Father.

It’s sick how people call the Archbishop various insulting and disrespectful things. While the pope was at Assisi getting blessed by witch doctors, watching almost naked girls dance, allowing statues of idols on the altar, and other incredible things, the Archbishop was simply trying to preserve the Faith of Christ.

The Last Judgment will reveal many more surprises than most think.

Yowsa … nice.

 

[TMS1213]

The SSPX appear to be more free to criticize and speak out directly about problems in authority than the FSSP.

If I am correct, I believe that is due to the fact that when the FSSP left the SSPX, they signed some sort of agreement which prevents them from voicing any displeasure with the hierarchy.

 

[iluvburpees]

If I am correct, I believe that is due to the fact that when the FSSP left the SSPX, they signed some sort of agreement which prevents them from voicing any displeasure with the hierarchy.

The Indult priests accept the absurdities of Ecclesiam Dei. They must accept the New Mass as valid and legitimate, and they want the Tridentine Mass because of “feelings” rather than dogma and the Faith. As JPII said:

“To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition…”

“Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the* feelings* of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition…”

So, this reinforces the principle of the Indult: namely, that the Tridentine Mass is chosen for personal feelings, as opposed to for doctrinal reasons, as the Archbishop did.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX is not going to compromise with the liberals to get “into” the Church. They are the ones who are truly in the Church.

That is far from the Tradition of the Catholic Church that recognizes the primacy of the Holy Father. I hope and pray that you are wrong and that cooler heads within the SSPX will prevail over egotism. The SSPX is not the Catholic Church. If that is the stance one takes, then they become no better than other group that has chosen separation over the centuries. Fortunately most SSPX are far more respectful of the Catholic Church and do not think they are more holy than the pope.

It’s sick how people call the Archbishop various insulting and disrespectful things…

Yet you have no problem insulting the Vicar of Christ. You insult the FSSP. You call Ecclessia Dei absurd. Your statement here is sheer hypocricy. You have no moral ground to accuse others of being insulting and disrespectful.

I predict that any unification will result in a split in the SSPX. That is because I see the problem of ego leading some to a “Non serviam” when it comes to the Holy Catholic Church as is lead by the Vatican.

 

[iluvburpees]

That is far from the Tradition of the Catholic Church that recognizes the primacy of the Holy Father.

You, as did JPII, do not see that disobedience does not imply a denial of primacy or authority. I’m sure you disobeyed your mother many times as a child. According to your logic, you must then have automatically denied that your mother had authority over you. Please explain.

I hope and pray that you are wrong and that cooler heads within the SSPX will prevail over egotism.

I appreciate the prayers, but I can assure you there is no egotism in what I am saying, just what is true.

The SSPX is not the Catholic Church.

They do only what the Catholic Church has done for millenia. I hesitate to say that they are the Catholic Church, since Novus Ordo Catholics generally lash out that we are “more Catholic than the Pope” (which gets quite aggravating after a while). However, they are the only ones who I can say are truly Catholic right now. There are likely a decent amount of independents who are just as Catholic as well (like the late Fr. Paul Wickens, for example).

If that is the stance one takes, then they become no better than other group that has chosen separation over the centuries.

Please don’t begin to compare lawful disobedience, for the purpose of saving the Catholic faith, with the heretical actions of a fat man making up his own dogmas that led to political revolution.

Fortunately most SSPX are far more respectful of the Catholic Church and do not think they are more holy than the pope.

Actually, anti-sspx people pretend to be more Catholic than the pope, since they reject the teachings of previous popes for the liberal novelties of recent popes and the clergy.

Yet you have no problem insulting the Vicar of Christ.

I am not sure exactly what basis you have for this claim. Back it up before you spew it out. I never insulted the pope; I pointed out problems with his public statements. We are allowed and obliged to judge actions as moral or immoral, not the person himself. I did the former.

You insult the FSSP.

**Again, you seem to use the term “insult” as if a child insults his brother. I never insulted the FSSP. I made an objective judgment on their actions, which were clearly hypocritical. **

You call Ecclessia Dei absurd.

**Perhaps I stated it wrong. But there was incredible hypocrisy contained in it, especially the first paragraph, stating the “intense efforts” with which the Holy See tried to ensure the full communion of the SSPX. Read the Archbishop’s biography to see what these “intense efforts” were. **

Your statement here is sheer hypocricy. You have no moral ground to accuse others of being insulting and disrespectful.
**
Again, I have judged actions, not people. The difference is crucial, and you have not right to claim that I have done the latter.**

I predict that any unification will result in a split in the SSPX. That is because I see the problem of ego leading some to a “Non serviam” when it comes to the Holy Catholic Church as is lead by the Vatican.

I serve God, and I serve god through man when man acts in the place of God. When man says don’t serve God, I keep my faith, a supernatural virtue, over obedience, a moral virtue, which would no longer be a moral virtue since it would be offensive to God.

 

[Ockham]

We should all take a breath and look at the big picture in order to gain proper perspective. I appreciate and thank God for both the SSPX and FSSP along with the other traditional orders.

To the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a time in the two thousand year history of the Church where so much change has occurred so fast. The history books will not skip over this period. Certainly we are not done changing or recovering so this is still a work in progress. How we who are living through these turmultous times deal with these circumstances will not be missed.

Next century Archbishop Levebre could very well be made a saint. The SSPX may be back in good standing and widely revered as courageous defenders of the faith. The FSSP may have an elevated position too. Of this I’m certain, liberals love to cause division within their opponents’ ranks in order to weaken and overcome them. If we are all sincere in our love of the Church then treating each other with respect and charity is necessary.

 

[CradleCath]

the jesuit priest that said one of the TLMs ive been to gave a sermon about how God’s love is not unconditional. gave specific scripture quotes to back it up too, it really makes sense when you think about it, not fluffy bunny

WOW!! Had he said anything like that in a Novus Ordo parish, he’d have been run out of town.

BTW., I’ve had that argument with a very liberal Catholic before. “He who HAS MY COMMANDMENTS AND KEEPS THEM, it is he who loves Me. And HE WHO LOVES ME will be loved by my father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14)

 

[Cristiano]

the jesuit priest that said one of the TLMs ive been to gave a sermon about how God’s love is not unconditional. gave specific scripture quotes to back it up too, it really makes sense when you think about it, not fluffy bunny

I think that simply saying that God love is not unconditional is as much BS as fluffy bunny stuff. If it were not unconditional He would not constantly offer us the opportunity to repent every time we reject Him with mortal sin, thus we would have a clear (Calvinistic) predestination. The point that probably the priest was trying to deliver is that God’s Love will not contradict God’s justice, thus He will not force his love onto us but he will always continue to offer it until our death. A parent’s love is unconditional but it can be extremely tough love.

 

[JMJ_coder]

WOW!! Had he said anything like that in a Novus Ordo parish, he’d have been run out of town.

BTW., I’ve had that argument with a very liberal Catholic before. “He who HAS MY COMMANDMENTS AND KEEPS THEM, it is he who loves Me. And HE WHO LOVES ME will be loved by my father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14)

But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

God is LOVE (1 John 4:8)

Refer to the parable of the prodigal son, whose father runs to embrace him.

God’s love for us is unconditional. I think the problem is that modern society really doesn’t understand what love is.

 

[Shin]

But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

God is LOVE (1 John 4:8)

Refer to the parable of the prodigal son, whose father runs to embrace him.

God’s love for us is unconditional. I think the problem is that modern society really doesn’t understand what love is.

One thing to remember about the prodigal son is that he returned repentant to the father. I think we can guess how the story would’ve gone differently if he had returned unrepentant.

 

[distracted]

Here is a picture taken three weeks ago of a “borderline schismatic” priest of the SSPX offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on perhaps the most privileged altar in the Vatican - in St Peter’s Basilica on the Clementine altar in the crypt below the main altar over the bones of St. Peter.

Apparently the Pope doesn’t hold quite the same views of the SSPX as some of the posters at C.A. I don’t think you’ll find many heretics or schismatics saying Mass down there.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Y381dSFdwkM/S-Xyw8IOJYI/AAAAAAAAAQM/EohoqYgIfsw/s320/stpetermass-2.JPG

i wish someone would explain the SSPX thing to those of us who don’t know much about it… all i know is that some people think the last real pope was Pius X…

is that what SSPXers believe?

 

[iluvburpees]

i wish someone would explain the SSPX thing to those of us who don’t know much about it… all i know is that some people think the last real pope was Pius X…

is that what SSPXers believe?

The SSPX does not make any claims as to whether the popes after Pius XII are true or not. We recognize all the popes after as popes, even though there is cause for doubt in regards to their actions. The SSPX was “excommunicated” because Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops without episcopal permission. The reason he did this was because he was very close to death, and he needed bishops to continue the work of Tradition, since only bishops can ordain other priests and consecrate other bishops. He did everything in his power to remain in full communion with Rome, yet he never got what he needed. There were numerous delays and unsatisfactory offers from Rome, and the Archbishop, after numerous attempts to work with Rome, was forced to consecrate without approval from Rome. If you wish to get a truly inside look at the distress and anguish the Archbishop was in for all these years, and what he had to put up with from the liberals, and ultimately how and why he made the decision to consecrate, pick up The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre. From what I have read so far, it is an incredible read.

 

[distracted]

The SSPX does not make any claims as to whether the popes after Pius XII are true or not. We recognize all the popes after as popes, even though there is cause for doubt in regards to their actions. The SSPX was “excommunicated” because Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops without episcopal permission. The reason he did this was because he was very close to death, and he needed bishops to continue the work of Tradition, since only bishops can ordain other priests and consecrate other bishops. He did everything in his power to remain in full communion with Rome, yet he never got what he needed. There were numerous delays and unsatisfactory offers from Rome, and the Archbishop, after numerous attempts to work with Rome, was forced to consecrate without approval from Rome. If you wish to get a truly inside look at the distress and anguish the Archbishop was in for all these years, and what he had to put up with from the liberals, and ultimately how and why he made the decision to consecrate, pick up The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre. From what I have read so far, it is an incredible read.

thank you… i assme i won’t be able to find it on CAF?

What is your personal story about how you came into the SSPX goup?

are they in virtually every major city?

are they in schism? i’ve heard 2 conflicting stories on that… confused…

 

[iluvburpees]

thank you… i assme i won’t be able to find it on CAF?

What is your personal story about how you came into the SSPX goup?

are they in virtually every major city?

are they in schism? i’ve heard 2 conflicting stories on that… confused…

It’s a very big book, so it’s probably reasonably pricey…but it’s good.

I started going to the SSPX after Fr. Paul Wickens died, and the board of directors betrayed his wishes for our very nice chapel to go to the SSPX by handing it over to the Archdiocese. So we started all over again, and the former district superior of the US gave us a priest. We started in a VFW hall, and finally got a nice little lutheran Church that we gradually converted into a beautiful Catholic Church.

The SSPX is not in schism…to explain it is very complex. You have to understand the crisis the church was, and still is, in. You have to understand the exact case of Archbishop Lefebvre and his dealings with Rome. And you especially have to understand why he ultimately decided that he had no choice but to consecrate without canonical approval and break full communion with Rome. It became obvious that the constant delays and unsatisfactory attempts at making deals with him were all in an effort to have him drop dead before any consecrations, so that he, the only truly Catholic bishop left, would be out of the way.

If you’d like more information, I’d recommend PM’ing me. You will get people bashing the SSPX here and you will only become more confused.

 

[distracted]

It’s a very big book, so it’s probably reasonably pricey…but it’s good.

I started going to the SSPX after Fr. Paul Wickens died, and the board of directors betrayed his wishes for our very nice chapel to go to the SSPX by handing it over to the Archdiocese. So we started all over again, and the former district superior of the US gave us a priest. We started in a VFW hall, and finally got a nice little lutheran Church that we gradually converted into a beautiful Catholic Church.

The SSPX is not in schism…to explain it is very complex. You have to understand the crisis the church was, and still is, in. You have to understand the exact case of Archbishop Lefebvre and his dealings with Rome. And you especially have to understand why he ultimately decided that he had no choice but to consecrate without canonical approval and break full communion with Rome. It became obvious that the constant delays and unsatisfactory attempts at making deals with him were all in an effort to have him drop dead before any consecrations, so that he, the only truly Catholic bishop left, would be out of the way.

If you’d like more information, I’d recommend PM’ing me. You will get people bashing the SSPX here and you will only become more confused.

thanks…

the ONLY true catholic bishop??? hmm… :coffeeread::hypno:

kinda hard to believe… but… uh… well… as much as i have been thro in life… i am open to believing just about anything… long as it makes some kind of logical sense…

and even then…

 

[Melchior_1]

The SSPX is not in schism…(snip)…so that he, the only truly Catholic bishop left, would be out of the way.

Say what you want about the SSPX might not being in schism, but with that kind of an attitude you’re pretty close to it yourself.

 

[distracted]

Say what you want about the SSPX might not being in schism, but with that kind of an attitude you’re pretty close to it yourself.

it is not good to condemn something b4 you know about it.

i have never heard the SSPX side of things…

so i will withhold my assessment…

are you saying you know virtually everything about the SSPX?

 

[Melchior_1]

it is not good to condemn something b4 you know about it.

i have never heard the SSPX side of things…

so i will withhold my assessment…

are you saying you know virtually everything about the SSPX?

No, I’m not saying I know everything about the SSPX, the comment was directed at iluvburpees. What I am saying is that carrying the attitude that ANY Bishop is “the only truly Catholic bishop left” is a borderline schismatic statement.