SSPX Mass ok?

[TNT]

bear06:

Let me ask you this? Do you believe that the SSPX is doing evil?

Hi Mama Bear!
WHO are you asking?
Do you mean intrinsic (absolute) evil, or relative evil toward the Concilar church?
Intrinsic evil…NO.
Evil in their religious practice and catechesis? NO.
Relative evil toward the conciliar church? YES. The concilar church deems any disobedience toward them as evil…at least they use to. But in that regard, the SSPX has the same opinion of the conciliar church created in 1964.
HOWEVER, From:
DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
DECEMBER 7, 1965

They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

And again:
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.
4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

…
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.

 

[TNT]

Here’s some anecdotal testimonies as to why some go to the SSPX, or even the indult:

How many of us were conservative Catholics?

 

[bear06]

I was asking the above poster T but since you’ve chimed in, let me make the question easier for you. Do you believe that the SSPX is assisting the devil in leading people away from communion with the Church and into their schism?

As far as DH, please read this: catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html

 

[Dropper]

bear06:

I was asking the above poster T but since you’ve chimed in, let me make the question easier for you. Do you believe that the SSPX is assisting the devil in leading people away from communion with the Church and into their schism?

As far as DH, please read this: catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html

But see to many Traditionalists there is the question as to whether there even is a schism. And if they think that there is many think that the schism is not with the SSPX, but the other way around…

I know that this wasn’t adressed to me, but I do not think that the SSPX is assisting the devil in way, shape, or form. They are battling Satan. I also do not believe that they are leading people away form communion with the Church. They are part of the Church.

 

[bear06]

I know that this wasn’t adressed to me, but I do not think that the SSPX is assisting the devil in way, shape, or form. They are battling Satan. I also do not believe that they are leading people away form communion with the Church. They are part of the Church.

The you are being deceived, my friend. Many a schismatic has thought that they were battling the devil. You cannot do good while doing evil. The devil has packaged this one up in pretty paper though, hasn’t he? Remember what Pope Pius X said himself:

If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement." (From an Allocution given on 18 September 1912.)

Let’s also not forget Vatican I:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

I was asking the above poster T but since you’ve chimed in, let me make the question easier for you. Do you believe that the SSPX is assisting the devil in leading people away from communion with the Church and into their schism?

As far as DH, please read this: catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html

Actually, many many protestants are coming directly into the SSPX. I know this is unspoken. But since my wife moves in those circles, I see it frequently.
Second, if you read the anecdote site I posted for reasons going to the SSPX, it most frequently happens to those who are fallen away catholics, and reverted into the SSPX.
From those 2 circumstances, the answer has to be NO.
Third, those who go FROM the NOM and have a distaste for the “we are church, more or less” parishes, going to SSPX this is a natural instinct. That is, their parishes and diocese tend to “drive out” the tradition minded catholic. Mostly they have no where else to go to get their traditional form of worship, demanded by their conscience. The indult is fine…when it’s available, but some cannot accept in their conscience, the VII mindset in the indult.
So, NO, they are not led away BY the SSPX. Rather the SSPX is simply the destiny of those who would otherwise leave the conciliar church altogether, and remove their children from its influences.
The SSPX is not really an “evangelizing” institution…unless some one comes TO them first. From that standpoint they do not LEAD others away.
Final solution:
Eventually, this will all be resolved by the SSPX over the decades, becoming, in the eyes of the conciliar church, as a rite that will be very similar to the Eastern Rite churches.
These ERC’s have given next to 0% practice of the the VII directives, as if they did not exist. They have their own catechesis, canon law, liturgy, and separate governance (ie. patriarchs).
For example, I cannot find ANY sermons or formal activities of the ERC’s that center around ecumenistic mania, or “dialogue” with non-catholics via inter-faith prayer meetings (at least not the laity), or liturgical experiments (well hardly). They do not particpate in the USCCB get togethers on how to better deform the church. They are relatively small in number, and do not “in your face” to the pope. They hold all traditional (pre-VatII) catholic doctrine, just like the SSPX, including Pastor Aeternus - Ch 4)
B16 wants concrete results, as opposed to JPII who seemed to be happy with philsophical or theoretical affirmations as a measure of success. This being the case, B16 will move toward what I described and the SSPX will eventually cooperate. May take a few popes to finish it, but that is the ONLY way this will be resolved for both interests.
I’ll call it the “Western Frenchy Rite” or the Econe Rite. But what ever name it assumes, it will happen eventually.
The answer to you then is—NO.

 

[Freeway4321]

Sean O L:

Freeway4321 wrote - and I wonder if you know precisely what you are writing!::

Which means “I must say…that WAS helpful” - is that what you really meant to say - if so, then whew - great!

Well, when you say “you can get” (meaning Sean O L) - I have to say that: why would Freeway4321 write this, as I am the author of the reference. Do you really mean “one can get all the info…”?

If you DO know “everything” then, I must say: “good for you”, but, **I **donot know precisely what you do know - and based on what you have said, I suspect that you do NOT know everything. Sorry about that!

Well, I am still waiting for the “serious comment”! What part of my quote do you comment upon or disagree with:

a) Schism IS a very grave sin against God and the Unity of the Church?
b) and is also a scandal to the faithful?
c) And, yes, it IS necessary for a schismatic to repent of all of their sins whilst being in a state of schism?
d) just as it is necessary for faithful Catholics to repent of their sins whilst in Union with the Church.?
e) What’s “happening”?
f) “And I take it the agreement with all of the Eastern Rite churches (besides the Maronites) said “repent for all of those schismatic masses you performed” Aye, methinks this wasn’t so.” - is speculative, isn’t it - if, not please provide evidence.

Friend… it’s obvious you spend much of your time trying to smear what the SSPX does. I am no SSPX lover, or apologist. But I respect some of what they do, and they certainly are more Catholic than alot of people who claim to be. So they should not be treated as second class Catholics.

Your dissecting of my post shows me that you have gotten defensive, which isn’t helpful to anyone who wants a civil debate.

I have an idea, why don’t you concern yourself with “Catholic” dissenters who don’t believe in what the church teaches pre-vatican II or post (Lord knows there are plenty). I think you would be doing a better service for the church (especially since reuniting with the SSPX has been something the current Holy Ecumenical Pontiff is trying to do)… Just a suggestion.

f) “And I take it the agreement with all of the Eastern Rite churches (besides the Maronites) said “repent for all of those schismatic masses you performed” Aye, methinks this wasn’t so.” - *is speculative, isn’t it - if, not please provide evidence. *

Google it.

c) And, yes, it IS necessary for a schismatic to repent of all of their sins whilst being in a state of schism?

I believe when one signs an agreement that would mean… they are no longer in schism. And whilist in a state of schism, I doubt they’d think of repenting in anyway. So this wasn’t helpful, inless I misunderstood.

 

[bear06]

Actually, many many protestants are coming directly into the SSPX. I know this is unspoken. But since my wife moves in those circles, I see it frequently.
Second, if you read the anecdote site I posted for reasons going to the SSPX, it most frequently happens to those who are fallen away catholics, and reverted into the SSPX.

Excuse me if I don’t rejoice at them going from one disobedient group to another one that doesn’t even have valid confessions. Thankfully, they are probably confused and therefore are not culpable but at some point they will find out that the pope has excomnunicated Lefebrve and at some point they will know that they are participating in a schismatic group. How many of these people will then leave? Unfortunately, at least now, few. Hopefully, with the efforts of those who have managed to escape from this group, this will happen on a regular basis. And BTW, maybe in your circle they are converting from protestantism but not in mine.

Third, those who go FROM the NOM and have a distaste for the “we are church, more or less” parishes, going to SSPX this is a natural instinct. That is, their parishes and diocese tend to “drive out” the tradition minded catholic. Mostly they have no where else to go to get their traditional form of worship, demanded by their conscience. The indult is fine…when it’s available, but some cannot accept in their conscience, the VII mindset in the indult.

I’ve said this, probably to you T, but running away to a disobedient group doesn’t evoke sympathy in me. Stand and fight or suffer with Our Lord. You act as if only the Traditionalist is persecuted. Give me a break!

So, NO, they are not led away BY the SSPX. Rather the SSPX is simply the destiny of those who would otherwise leave the conciliar church altogether, and remove their children from its influences.

Now we believe in pre-destination? Holy cow, T! You’re really stretching now.

The SSPX is not really an “evangelizing” institution…unless some one comes TO them first. From that standpoint they do not LEAD others away.

Please. This is actually laughable. How about the Angelus Press and their little “New to Tradition” kit? The Angelus Press is the printing arm of the SSPX and their books are written by SSPXers and their supporters.

Final solution:
Eventually, this will all be resolved by the SSPX over the decades, becoming, in the eyes of the conciliar church, as a rite that will be very similar to the Eastern Rite churches.

Guess what? The SSPX doesn’t have the authority to resolve things this way. Try the pope!

These ERC’s have given next to 0% practice of the the VII directives, as if they did not exist. They have their own catechesis, canon law, liturgy, and separate governance (ie. patriarchs).
For example, I cannot find ANY sermons or formal activities of the ERC’s that center around ecumenistic mania, or “dialogue” with non-catholics via inter-faith prayer meetings (at least not the laity), or liturgical experiments (well hardly). They do not particpate in the USCCB get togethers on how to better deform the church. They are relatively small in number, and do not “in your face” to the pope. They hold all traditional (pre-VatII) catholic doctrine, just like the SSPX, including Pastor Aeternus - Ch 4)
B16 wants concrete results, as opposed to JPII who seemed to be happy with philsophical or theoretical affirmations as a measure of success. This being the case, B16 will move toward what I described and the SSPX will eventually cooperate. May take a few popes to finish it, but that is the ONLY way this will be resolved for both interests.
I’ll call it the “Western Frenchy Rite” or the Econe Rite. But what ever name it assumes, it will happen eventually.
The answer to you then is—NO.

This sounds like an area from Byzantine but I haven’t seen him on this thread. As for your wishes…All I can say is that I hope and pray that they are one day back in union with the Pope. Right now, they are bad examples. They are no different from those on the left who take the “let’s disobey until the pope says we’re not disobeying anymore”.

 

[bear06]

Friend… it’s obvious you spend much of your time trying to smear what the SSPX does.

Smear?! How about expose. SSPX hasn’t signed an agreement. Campos did. :clapping:

 

[TNT]

bear06:

The you are being deceived, my friend. Many a schismatic has thought that they were battling the devil. You cannot do good while doing evil. The devil has packaged this one up in pretty paper though, hasn’t he? Remember what Pope Pius X said himself:

Let’s also not forget Vatican I:

Here you go again! http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/deadhorse.gif
Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis
On the Greatest of Heresies - MODERNISM

1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”[1] “vain talkers and seducers,”[2] “erring and driving into error.”[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who,** by arts entirely new and full of deceit**, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church…
2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary mall.
   3…Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. (is the SSPX from within, if it is without?) Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/greenchainsaw.gif(Who was it that went into the Liturgy, Catechism, Canon Law, Sacraments, the holy Days, the Architecture, the schools, the sex ed for children, the qualifications for the seminary, and TOUCHED them with drastic innovations? The SSPX? or the VATII church?)
   6…According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena… ( who is that spews "phenominology? The SSPX? or the VATII popes?)

In reading the whole encyclical as well as the Syllabus of ERRORS, deephousepage.com is struck by the literal prophetic nature of these Saintly popes. NONE of which anticipated, however, that popes can also be Modernists…that was left to the 18th cent freemasons.
PASTOR AETERNUS :
For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed on through the Apostles.( Definition of Sacred Tradition. Who was it that “handed down inter-faith prayer meetings for world peace” as Aposotolic Tradition? The SSPX? or the VatII church?)

 

[TNT]

Final solution:
Eventually, this will all be resolved by the SSPX [over the decades], becoming, in the eyes of the conciliar church, as a rite that will be very similar to the Eastern Rite churches.

Guess what? The SSPX doesn’t have the authority to resolve things this way. Try the pope

Read it AGAIN I didn’t say the SSPX would resolve it. Nevertheless, they have to be part of any agreement.

So, NO, they are not led away BY the SSPX. Rather the SSPX is simply the destiny [MEANING A DESTINATION, NOT FATE! ] of those who would otherwise leave the conciliar church altogether, and remove their children from its influences.

Now we believe in pre-destination? Holy cow, T! You’re really stretching now.

CUTE, VERY CUTE, VERY VERY VERY CUTE.

Excuse me if I don’t rejoice at them going from one disobedient group to another one that doesn’t even have valid confessions. …

What’s the big deal? VATII church says:
“the Holy Spirit Himself [approves] of these communities and supplies them the Grace that leads to salvation” [as well as the subsist-in church]. LG.
Check it out.

 

[TNT]

Excuse me if I don’t rejoice at them going from one disobedient group to another one that doesn’t even have valid confessions. …

From:
CAN NON-CATHOLICS BE SAVED
ACCORDING TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?
The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifThe “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium” (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the *Second Vatican Ecumenical Council *(often referred to as “Vatican II”). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. *Lumen Gentium" *contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on *“The Mystery of the church.” *Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of: http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gifFollowers of the Catholic Church, http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gifMembers of other Christian denominations, and http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gifBelievers of non-Christian religions. **5 **The language is difficult to follow for a lay person. However, an “Assessment of this Council” was written “as an AID to study by Catholic Students of the Second Vatican Council. They contain material, some written in a journalistic style, for the American reader.” In the section “The Constitution of the Church” the assessment reads:

“*The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now ***solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. **To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God’s word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.”

1. *The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." *

Contd…

 

[TNT]

Contd…
From the convention of the Church of 1964CE:
Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio:
"The brethren divided from us [ARE THE SSPX BRETHERN DIVIDED FROM THE VATII CHURCH?] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

 

[TNT]

The fate of non-Catholics, as stated by the Church OF 33AD:

Before Vatican II, the Church [of 33AD] consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifPope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered “one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages…” 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifPope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:*“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ***2 **

The last sentence in the original Latin reads: “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.” 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifPope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:“It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” 4

 

[bear06]

You’re rambling T! Let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying that any of the post-VII **popes ** have taught heresy? This is a yes or no question.It would seem that you were saying this in your four voluminous posts to say this. I’m sure your going to tell me you didn’t but I’m assuming that there are more than me thinking this right now.

The SSPX is in schism. They are not in communion with Rome. They may or may not reconcile with Rome. For all we know, they could someday end up as the EO (which I’m hoping and praying does not happen.) I would never want anyone to get trapped with this group.

How about you use a little more reliable sources such as CA rather than religioustolerance.org ?

As far as the Church documents you posted…I agree with all of them. I’m still a little fuzzy on how you think they support the SSPX or condemn Lumen Gentium. I still submit that you cannot do good by doing evil.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Irish Melkite wrote:

Your zeal to bring those who adhere to the SSPX back to the Church is admirable but may I suggest that prayer and dialogue are significantly more persuasive means of doing so than is the throwing of anathemas.

You are certainly entitled to your “suggestions”. Prayer is, indeed, a major requirement for this matter. However, do you seriously believe that prayer and dialogue alone are the methods employed by the Vatican in its efforts (frequently in vain!) to attempt reconciliation of all/any of those who have deserted Her?

I am not going to dignify the above question with an answer.

That, my friend is entirely your prerogative; but, I suggest that it is a cop-out - for it shows that your generalization is false - and THAT was the point of the exercize!

Any attempt to draw an analogy between the acts of priests who embrace Satanism and priests of the SSPX is more than distasteful, it represents a calumny that is unworthy of being given note on a Catholic forum.

Again, you are entitled to your point of view. However, your false logic is exposed.

To expose the false logic of another party - one who is a product of the midwifery of Archbishop Lefebvre (most initial sedevacantists were SSPX priests and/or supporters) - I provide the following:

From : Arpad Kovacs arpad@teledomenet.gr
Date : Sunday, 9 October 2005 9:15:32 AM
To : jloughnan@hotmail.com

Subject : letter from greece

by reading your anticatholic and modernist articles,one just can wonder,how tremendous satan’s power became,by blinding people like you and many others.you’re indeed a terrible demon,just as those accursed no-popes jason-roncalli,menelaus-montini,lysimachus-luciani,alcimus-woytila and ratzinger.although I’m sure,that you know the Catholic Truth,you blatantly reject it,just like the jews rejected Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,and by doing so,they attracted on them God’s eternal wrath.This is the sin against the Holy Spirit,which,according to Our Lord Jesus Christ never will be forgiven.(knowing very well the truth and thus rejecting it,because of a fake attempt of reconciliation with satan and his followers,in order words with everybody,who is not Catholic).Jesus Christ came into the world to destroy satan and his kingdom and not to reconcile.Moreover it is impossible,to make peace with satan,because satan is the anti-peace in person ,or do you really believe,that there is just one little spark of goodness in him?

You’re rejecting permanently Catholic Faith and Teaching,which has been revealed to The Holy Catholic and Roman Church until the death of the last pope Pope Pius XII.How can God suddenly now, after the coup d’etat of the modernists with jason-roncalli on the top ,change his opinion on almost every issue,although Our Lord taught us,that before only one komma of his teaching will change,the whole world will pass away.
Is it not written in 2.Thes.2,that just before the second coming of Christ,the antichrist will sit in the church and pose as God.Is that not the biggest contradiction,if there is a valid pope,and at the same time the antichtist sitting in the church,posing as God?And is it not the institution of the Pope,who delayed this happening,until the the sun of perdition reveals himself(in the person of jason-roncalli and his abominable followers and all those,who falsely will accept them and their teachings as beeing from God.And as it is evident with you antichrist will have big success in decieving people and leading them directly to the etrnal fires of hell.I suggest you,to study very carefully 2.Thes.2 and also the prophecies of the Prophet Daniel in 1.Maccabees,regarding the Abomination of Desolation,which will be the sign,just before Our Lord Jesus Christ’s Second Coming.Let’s see,if you will find some parallels betwenn the first abomination of desolation period,when the jews returned to worship idols,and our sedevacantist period.

Arpad Kovacs

P.S By citing always(although interpreting it falsely ,to justify obbedience to the novus ordo sect) ,that the fires of hell won’t defeat the church,you’re absolutely right,because despite all persecutions,there are still faithfull catholic bishops,priests religious and believers,who never will surender to UNA CUM SATANAS(=jason-roncalli.menelaus-montini,lysimachus-luciani,alcimus-woytyla and ratzinger.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Freeway4321 wrote:

Friend… it’s obvious you spend much of your time trying to smear what the SSPX does. I am no SSPX lover, or apologist. But I respect some of what they do, and they certainly are more Catholic than alot of people who claim to be. So they should not be treated as second class Catholics.

Your choice of words continues to do yourself a disservice - and I have pointed out previously, and as bear06 has pointed out:

Smear?! How about expose. SSPX hasn’t signed an agreement. Campos did.

Again, you have proven the point that you do not understand the words that you write: in my last post to you, I pointed out that you had written:

I must say… that wasn’t unhelpful.

Which is a “double negative” conveying precisely the opposite to what you really meant to say.

Your dissecting of my post shows me that you have gotten defensive, which isn’t helpful to anyone who wants a civil debate.

Rather than me being defensive - it is you who are being obfuscating. A civil debate is just fine by me, but you need to be capable of being corrected, and humble enough to accept correction for obvious errors.

 

[Freeway4321]

Sean O L:

Freeway4321 wrote:

Your choice of words continues to do yourself a disservice - and I have pointed out previously, and as bear06 has pointed out:

Again, you have proven the point that you do not understand the words that you write: in my last post to you, I pointed out that you had written:

Which is a “double negative” conveying precisely the opposite to what you really meant to say.

Rather than me being defensive - it is you who are being obfuscating. A civil debate is just fine by me, but you need to be capable of being corrected, and humble enough to accept correction for obvious errors.

I won’t debate my typographical errors. It was obvious what I ment. But taken out of context it’s not, which you have done…

So, because i’ve read your posts on "freepublic"and i’ve seen your posts on this forum… you can have the title of *“the SSPX buster”. * I get it. Again, do the church some good and tackle the Heterodox.

 

[JOHNYJ]

They never tell the missguided faithful they have that they are not Catholic,that they are not in Communion with the Pope.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**REMINDER TO ALL POSTING:

Although some of us follow a different rite, or are separated in form from the one unified body of worshippers we all seek and pray for, in your charity please remember that we are all baptized into the living community of Christianity, we are jointly confirmed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit; we stand in awe at the miracle of bread and wine, we are shared participators in prayer and together we have the common destiny of leaving this earth in our final journey home to eternity where surely some of us shall meet each other.

If the purpose of these discussions is to illuminate the truth so that all may see and share, then let us do so with light rather than heat.**