SSPX Info, updates and interviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JustaServant said:
This is a very important point. From a person who left the Church many years ago, became a Baptist, even preached in a pulpit, and then returned…the issue is one of authority.
For twenty some years the Society has been, at least to me a layman with no education in canonical law, in a kind Limbo. The liberals declare them not Catholic and many trads speak of “new Church” or Novus Ordo Church. It can’t continue that way and I think both Pope Benedict and Fellay know it. You’re either in or you are out, “choose now whom you will serve”. It doesn’t mean all the problems are instantly solved, but they can be better solved from within, not without.
When I returned to the Catholic Church I remember telling my wife "you know we are not trying to find the most ‘perfect, pure. church’ (a rationalization that led me to being Baptist). I said “in a way, we’re walking into a mess!!” 🙂
But isn’t that what God’s Church on earth is like? It’s not perfect, filled with perfect people.
But the Catholic Church at the same time is perfect because it is the Church Christ founded, not because everyone in it is a saint.
I can and have sympathized with the SSPX, at the same time I cringe when I hear the polarlizing langage coming from people in their chapels.
Were thier wrongs committed on both sides? Yes.
But lets let the Church do its job, instead of becoming “little popes” and deciding for ourselves.
Click to expand...
This is an amazingly good post.

Here in the south, I hear it all the time from former Baptists, especially men, that at the end of the day for them it was a question of authority. A disagreement occurs in their Church and then sides are taken. It is not uncommon in the Evangelical world for Churches to split over such a disagreement, or just implode and collapse. After seeing friends who went through both, I don’t know which is worse. These Churches have no recourse because there is no authority.

Your words about “Walking into a mess” are sublimely funny. Its a two thousand year old, 1.3 billion people sized mess. I try to do my part to keep my little section clean.

I just wanted to thank you for this good post. You made my day.

-Tim-
 
JustaServant said:
Did Bishop Williamson deny the Holocaust happened? Or was he questioning the numbers?
Click to expand...
Checkout Brooklyn’s post. There is the exact statement. There are several problematic points here.
  1. If one says that only 10,000 or so died and none in gas chambers, instead of six million, then one is effectively denying the Holocaust Ten thousand is still horrific, but it’s a far cry from 6 million.
  2. The gas chambers are there. I’m not sure what the good bishop thinks they were used for.
  3. He would be invalidating or at least calling into question not only Jewish history, but Catholic history as well. Four million Christians also died for harboring Jews. Why would the Nazis kill four million non-Jews? In addition, we have two canonized saints who were killed in the Holocaust. We are absolutely positive proof that St. Edith Stein was gassed. There are writings by St. Maximilian Kolbe where he blasts the Nazis and mentions the gas chambers. He was arrested twice for his public outrage.
  4. He put the pope is a bad spot with the Jewish community. First, because he’s the pope. Second, because he’s been the lead man in Catholic - Jewish dialogue for more than 20 years. Third, because he’s German.
  5. The Holy See has had an agreement with Jews and Muslims in Palestine (now Israel) forged by St. Francis of Assisi in 1219 that grants the Franciscans full custody of the Christian sites in the Holy Land, but in return, the Franciscans may not proselytize to Jews or Muslims or betray their trust. There is a relationship that we have to be very careful not to jeopardize.
  6. The other important detail is that Catholic clergy and religious are strongly discouraged to back away from revisionist history, because it’s very political and it’s used to undermine our teaching on the dignity of life. The Revisionists claim that while there have been crimes against humanity, the culture of death is a Jewish and Catholic manipulation to further our agenda. The same revisionists also claim that 25 million children have not been aborted.
You see, it’s a Domino effect. One begins by denying one holocaust, which leads people to question every other reported holocaust. This is what the Culture of Death wants to do, to plant the seed of doubt. The good bishop got drawn into this, despite the many warnings to be attentive to the revisionist agenda. The same revisionists claim that the Catholics were not in danger of being invaded by Muslims during the Middle Ages and that the Crusades were a power play by the papacy.

My belief is that for someone like Bishop Williamson, who has a certain degree of notoriety, to be in the spotlight (with the pope) is awkward for the Holy Father. He publicly said that had he known, he would have separated him from the other bishops and not lifted his excommunication, because “I would never introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.” Very strong words. It’s on public record that the pope said this. It seems logical that the Holy See reach some kind of agreement with the bishop that he’s going to behave. I think he will accept it. He got burned. I believe he realizes that one can think, but not say certain things. They’re counter-productive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Checkout Brooklyn’s post. There is the exact statement. There are several problematic points here.
  1. If one says that only 10,000 or so died and none in gas chambers, instead of six million, then one is effectively denying the Holocaust Ten thousand is still horrific, but it’s a far cry from 6 million.
  2. The gas chambers are there. I’m not sure what the good bishop thinks they were used for.
  3. He would be invalidating or at least calling into question not only Jewish history, but Catholic history as well. Four million Christians also died for harboring Jews. Why would the Nazis kill four million non-Jews? In addition, we have two canonized saints who were killed in the Holocaust. We are absolutely positive proof that St. Edith Stein was gassed. There are writings by St. Maximilian Kolbe where he blasts the Nazis and mentions the gas chambers. He was arrested twice for his public outrage.
  4. He put the pope is a bad spot with the Jewish community. First, because he’s the pope. Second, because he’s been the lead man in Catholic - Jewish dialogue for more than 20 years. Third, because he’s German.
  5. The Holy See has had an agreement with Jews and Muslims in Palestine (now Israel) forged by St. Francis of Assisi in 1219 that grants the Franciscans full custody of the Christian sites in the Holy Land, but in return, the Franciscans may not proselytize to Jews or Muslims or betray their trust. There is a relationship that we have to be very careful not to jeopardize.
  6. The other important detail is that Catholic clergy and religious are strongly discouraged to back away from revisionist history, because it’s very political and it’s used to undermine our teaching on the dignity of life. The Revisionists claim that while there have been crimes against humanity, the culture of death is a Jewish and Catholic manipulation to further our agenda. The same revisionists also claim that 25 million children have not been aborted.
You see, it’s a Domino effect. One begins by denying one holocaust, which leads people to question every other reported holocaust. This is what the Culture of Death wants to do, to plant the seed of doubt. The good bishop got drawn into this, despite the many warnings to be attentive to the revisionist agenda. The same revisionists claim that the Catholics were not in danger of being invaded by Muslims during the Middle Ages and that the Crusades were a power play by the papacy.

My belief is that for someone like Bishop Williamson, who has a certain degree of notoriety, to be in the spotlight (with the pope) is awkward for the Holy Father. He publicly said that had he known, he would have separated him from the other bishops and not lifted his excommunication, because “I would never introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.” Very strong words. It’s on public record that the pope said this. It seems logical that the Holy See reach some kind of agreement with the bishop that he’s going to behave. I think he will accept it. He got burned. I believe he realizes that one can think, but not say certain things. They’re counter-productive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks Brother JR!👍

:blessyou:
 
JustaServant said:
This is a very important point. From a person who left the Church many years ago, became a Baptist, even preached in a pulpit, and then returned…the issue is one of authority.
For twenty some years the Society has been, at least to me a layman with no education in canonical law, in a kind Limbo. The liberals declare them not Catholic and many trads speak of “new Church” or Novus Ordo Church. It can’t continue that way and I think both Pope Benedict and Fellay know it. You’re either in or you are out, “choose now whom you will serve”. It doesn’t mean all the problems are instantly solved, but they can be better solved from within, not without.
When I returned to the Catholic Church I remember telling my wife "you know we are not trying to find the most ‘perfect, pure. church’ (a rationalization that led me to being Baptist). I said “in a way, we’re walking into a mess!!” 🙂
But isn’t that what God’s Church on earth is like? It’s not perfect, filled with perfect people.
But the Catholic Church at the same time is perfect because it is the Church Christ founded, not because everyone in it is a saint.
I can and have sympathized with the SSPX, at the same time I cringe when I hear the polarlizing langage coming from people in their chapels.
Were thier wrongs committed on both sides? Yes.
But lets let the Church do its job, instead of becoming “little popes” and deciding for ourselves.
Click to expand...
👍

:amen: :blessyou:
 
JustaServant said:
When I returned to the Catholic Church I remember telling my wife "you know we are not trying to find the most ‘perfect, pure. church’ (a rationalization that led me to being Baptist). I said “in a way, we’re walking into a mess!!” 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s why being a Franciscan is so great! We thrive in messes. Just think, at our lowest number, we’ve been 1.7 million. and we’re a mess. :dancing:
at the same time I cringe when I hear the polarlizing langage coming from people in their chapels.
Click to expand...
This is a very important point. People hear words and start to use them, very often incorrectly.

I have corrected many people whom I’ve heard say that the SSPX are schismatics. I always go back to the same point, “the ordination of bishops without a papal mandate is a schismatic act, but it does not mean that the person(s) are schismatic. It takes a little more than that to be in schism.”

Then I want to scream every time I hear people like me described as “conciliar Catholics” or “novus ordo Catholics”. I’m none of the above. I’m a Catholic. If one wants to separate me from the Traditionalist Catholic, then I’m a mainstream Catholic.

I almost lost my coffee the other day, reading a post. The OP said that he/she had been told by the spiritual director that it was not good for his spiritual life to attend the SSPX chapel. Another poster jumped in and said, “Your spiritual director is a Modernist. You need to lose him and go the SSPX.” How does someone reading a post on the Internet know what is or is not good for a person’s spiritual life? Why throw out the word, Modernist? The spiritual director may be right on the money. I once told someone that they had to stop reading St. Louis de Montford, because the person was concerned that he did not understand Jesus’ relationship with the Blessed Mother. He was getting it backward, clearly not understanding de Montford at all. That does not make me a Modernist.

Words have meaning and those meanings hurt. I can see that in Bishop Fellay’s letter. He is hurt by the words of his associates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
jwinch2 said:
romereports.com/palio/cardinal-koch-we-cant-be-catholic-and-not-accept-the-second-vatican-council-english-6823.html

Cardinal Koch: “We can’t be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council”
Click to expand...
As I’ve said before, people need to mind their businesses. No non-Catholic should have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the regularization of the SSPX. The SSPX are already Catholic like it or not.

It’s an “A&B” conversation, as they used to say when I was a kid.

Grrr…
 
jwinch2 said:
romereports.com/palio/cardinal-koch-we-cant-be-catholic-and-not-accept-the-second-vatican-council-english-6823.html

Cardinal Koch: “We can’t be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council”
Click to expand...
Cardinal Koch won’t be the one making the decision on the SSPX.

Also, the word “accept” is ridiculously vague. What is it supposed to mean?

If one takes it to mean (with respect to Vatican II) that the council was validly convened, approved, ratified, etc., then pretty much no one fails to “accept” the council

If one takes it to mean that the council made non-infallible (possibly erroneous) doctrinal statements that nonetheless must be accepted with submission, but perhaps with mental reservation, understood in continuity with the doctrine of the preconciliar magisterium, then even most traditionalist Catholics “accept” the council in this sense.

If one takes it to mean that the council must be accepted as a correction of earlier magisterial teaching and interpreted as a break with previous doctrine and practice, then no one at all is obliged to “accept” the council.

So what does “accept” mean?

As far as I can tell the SSPX “accepts” the council as a valid council, but maintains that it was mostly useless and that in a few places, the council texts contain erroneous statements, that may be rejected, as they are not infallible doctrinal statements.

Is that sufficient “acceptance” of the council? Only the Pope can decide that.
 
TrueLight said:
As I’ve said before, people need to mind their businesses. No non-Catholic should have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the regularization of the SSPX. The SSPX are already Catholic like it or not.

It’s an “A&B” conversation, as they used to say when I was a kid.

Grrr…
Click to expand...
Lost me. Who are the non-Catholics involved or did you find that in another source?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
TrueLight said:
As I’ve said before, people need to mind their businesses. No non-Catholic should have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the regularization of the SSPX. The SSPX are already Catholic like it or not.

It’s an “A&B” conversation, as they used to say when I was a kid.

Grrr…
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
That’s what I get for skimming for two seconds and then commenting based on how I feel about another thread!
 
TrueLight said:
That’s what I get for skimming for two seconds and then commenting based on how I feel about another thread!
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the Mayor in this discussion? THAT would really be messy. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
wasserfall said:
Cardinal Koch won’t be the one making the decision on the SSPX.

Also, the word “accept” is ridiculously vague. What is it supposed to mean?

If one takes it to mean (with respect to Vatican II) that the council was validly convened, approved, ratified, etc., then pretty much no one fails to “accept” the council

If one takes it to mean that the council made non-infallible (possibly erroneous) doctrinal statements that nonetheless must be accepted with submission, but perhaps with mental reservation, understood in continuity with the doctrine of the preconciliar magisterium, then even most traditionalist Catholics “accept” the council in this sense.

If one takes it to mean that the council must be accepted as a correction of earlier magisterial teaching and interpreted as a break with previous doctrine and practice, then no one at all is obliged to “accept” the council.

So what does “accept” mean?

As far as I can tell the SSPX “accepts” the council as a valid council, but maintains that it was mostly useless and that in a few places, the council texts contain erroneous statements, that may be rejected, as they are not infallible doctrinal statements.

Is that sufficient “acceptance” of the council? Only the Pope can decide that.
Click to expand...
This is on the money! I don’t know HOW to accept Vatican II! What does that even mean, to “accept” Vatican II? Is it some manner of waking up each morning and active saying to oneself, “I accept Vatican II?”

What does it mean to accept Vatican II?
 
sorry posted in wrong spot and won’t let me unpost… Never mind me. Carry on everyone. 😃
 
jwinch2 said:
romereports.com/palio/cardinal-koch-we-cant-be-catholic-and-not-accept-the-second-vatican-council-english-6823.html

Cardinal Koch: “We can’t be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council”
Click to expand...
“We cannot be Catholic and not accept the Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, after the Second Vatican Council.”
Click to expand...
This had to have been translated. I can only imagine how my rhetoric teacher would have graded this, had it been written in English. :eek::eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top