I 2nd the LC. Very conservative, big on education (Every LC priest I know has spent time studying in Rome). Meditations are required each day, as well as the hinge (Lauds and Vespers) prayers of the Breviary, but the time of day is up to the priest within reason. I do know they spend about 3 hours a day in prayer.
I agree, the SSPX is in schism with Rome. From what I hear, they actively preach against the Pope.
DOn’t believe everything you hear… I have been told that I worship a cookie,becuase I kneel before the Blessed Sacrament.
excellent order opus Dei, and The Holy Cross from Portugal.
What you seem to hear seems to be nothing but hearsay and gossip. I don’t think depending on what “one hears” is good catholic practice. Rather, finding out through study and research on your own=that’s catholic. The SSPX, do NOT SPEAK NOR TEACH ANYTHING AGAINST THE POPE=QUITE THE CONTRARY, they pray for him daily= i am NOT a member, but have BEEN to two of their masses on a Sunday(by the way VALID but not licit according to Cardinal Ratzinger himself and he does say the Sunday SSPX Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. There are worse things believe me than the SSPX such as dancing masses, clown masses, jazz masses, etc. These and those similar should really worry us.
Well, if you are going to accuse me of being a bad Catholic, it was for being lazy, not a gossip. From the SSPX website FAQ’s:
*
It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of Pope Paul VI’s). Only God can so judge him,
*
nor is it for us to judge him juridically —the Pope has no superior on earth —or to declare unquestionably null all his acts,
*
but we must make a judgment of his words and actions inasmuch as they affect our eternal salvation, as our Savior said:
"Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them." (Mt. 7:15)Fr.Francois de Marie des Anges is not an SSPX priests or associated with them. He is associated with Fr.Georges de Nante, who preaches many of the same things as the SSPX, but vehemently preaches against the SSPX and is obedient to his bishop. He is obedient to his bishop becuase suspended him and he followed through on that.see here www.crc-internet.org/ftc3.htm
Yes, they go on and on about how they pray for the Pope everyday and that they believe him to be the true Pope. That’s about the extent of their loyalty, obedience and submission. I’ve received the SSPX’s nice little catechetical box on why they are right to do what they do, how they are not in schism and how they are the Remnant and I can tell you that it’s anything but pro-Holy Father. You can put as much frosting on it as you like but it’s basically a bunch of “Oh we love and obey the Pope and we pray that he will come to his senses.” Lex orandi, lex credendi! How submissive is that? Puleeeeeeeeeeeez. Something tells me not to many of the men would consider their wives submissive if they took the same tone!
Three points in my thesis: 1. Now you claim that the sspx is going to hell, so that’s why the Vatican is talking with them. 2. They are anti THIS pope. 3. your arguments
Ahhhhh, so you think dying in schism and/or excommunicated is a good idea for the soul? Somehow I think you’d be the first person to argue for no salvation outside the Catholic Church!!!
2. You seem to not be well read regarding infallability, ex-cathedra, or ordinary magisterium: One does NOT have to agree with the Pope on non-infallible, non, ex-cathedra, or non ordinary magisterial teachings.When has a pope in his teaching told us to sin?
No, I mean the ones the Church has declared in schism. What’s your beef with Hahn? Here’s one argument I haven’t heard or at least I’ve forgotten about.
And if you knew anything about me you would know that I helped take on the diocese and won and now have a great bishop. I don’t limit my battles to the liberal schisms. Schism is schism and I don’t play favorites between the liberal schismatics and the conservative schismatics like you appear to do. First, it seems by what you wrote here, you do not even know what is the meaning of schism. Worse of all, you remind me of one of my 7th grade students(at Catholic School) who reads into a paragraph in his book information which is not actually there. Thirdly, you seem to take the heretical view that EVERY word the popes speak MUST be about faith and morals and must be ex-cathedra, and hence one MUST!!! Follow, pluaeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. I strongly suggest you do research on what is and is NOT a MUST follow regarding what a pope says. I guess if a pope likes football, according to YOU all catholics MUST like football? Where did I say i was St. Catherine of Sienna? Actually I am sure you do not even know how many doctors of the Church there are, or that she was one. Your arguments loose all value and in the rules of argumentation and logic you would get a c- mostly because you fall into the common fallacy: that when you are loosing an argument, in a subjective way, resort to PERSONAL attacks by calling me a schismatic. Again, look deep into you own thesis here and you will find that you have just invented your own personal doctrine, and worse just declared yourself pope bear by stating I am in schism. I am laughing out LOUD!! What are the requirements in canon law which make a person EXcommunicated and in schism??
.
.
No, I strongly suggest YOU do a little research. Like most rad-Trads you pick and choose where you will follow which sound rather Protestant in theory. Why don’t you go ahead and give me one example of a teaching on Faith and Morals which you do not have to follow?
And you think I believe that this has to do with Faith and Morals? Just another red-herring argument to shift people focus. Everyone please take note of this. It’s a common tactic. People on this thread are not stupid.
Oh yes, you are the only one with an education. The point is, since you’ve forgotten is that you used St. Catherine as an example of someone who refused to submit to the Pope’s authority even though this didn’t happen.
And this happened when? Yes, once again, keep saying it and maybe it’ll just be true!
.
Again, everyone, bear keeps falling into his same old fallacy of argumentation by resorting to personal attacks on me: by his inventing and twisting my words to try to prove a point that the POPE must be followed in all he EVER says when NOT talikng on faith and morals, ex-cathedra, or in his ordinary magisterium: one example is that he believes that I am stating that the pope is not to be listened to in faith and morals. Quite the contrary, I will give bear the benefit of the doubt if he can cite where I said in ANY of my 800 or so posts that the Pope is NOT to be obeyed in faith and morals. If you bear took the time to seriously and objectivally read my actual words instead of your own eisegesis(YOUR PERSONAL reading into my words what was actually never said) you would clearly see, as even my 12 year old nephew has that my WHOLE entire thesis is: Popes must be obeyed in their ex-cathedra declarations, or in their magisterial teachings, or when speaking on faith and morals. However, the popes are NOT infallible when just giving their own personal (motu propio) opinions on issues: again, you argue that popes are to be obeyed in ALL they say, and I asked in an analogy : if the pope likes football, MUST all Catholics like football or they are schismatics, sinful, and are excommunicated. If you believe this, state it clearly, if NOT, then re-define yourself, instead of addind words to my thesis that are NOT actually there and the readers of these forums CLEARLY can see that.