SSPX Proselytism

[latinmasslover]

Let’s be serious. The TLM is a false issue. SSPX got back the TLM; they got back what they said they wanted.

He we go again.

They want exhonoration for their position, and that of the Archbishop, that the Church has been infiltrated by Modernists, and those embued with a ‘false ecumenism’. They want the Church to get down on her knees for them, and repudiate the Second Vatican Council.

Wrong again. They want the Church to stop compromising with heretic religions, modern science, etc, and go back to teaching the Catholic Faith.

All this nonsense about Vatican 2 defining nothing, and that it was a pastoral council only is part of the plot.

Enlighten us, what did Vatican II define? I hate to burst your bubble but Pope Paul VI and John Paul II have said it was not dogmatic. This does not mean that they say it’s not binding, but nevertheless…

So when I hear that, my ears perk up - SSPX. Overt love of the TLM, which I am amazed at, since the Mass we have is the same as the TLM, which a few accidental differences - you know them.

Same sacrifice, ugly rubrics.

They want honor for Archbishop Lefebrve, and move him in the process of canonization.

So what.

Pray on, SSPX, it is not going to go in that direction. The Holy Father will not permit it. The Catholic faithful will not permit it.

The Catholic faithful have no say.
Rather presumptuous statement regarding what the Holy Father will and will not do. Oh well, God may have other plans.

They will fall deeper into their schism, until, because they do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they will fall into heresy.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[catharina]

You are going to have to be more specific. What do you mean “the Church” condemned his actions? This is the fuzzy sort of sloganeering that tends to prevent the conversation from going forward.

As far as I know, it was the Pope that claimed that archbishop LeFebvre excommunicated himself and somehow that “implied” (when he meant infers) a schism.

You seem to be confusing the Pope with the Church. The maxim is “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” It’s not “Who Peter is, is the Church.”

See, this is the kind of uncharitable groundless calumny based on an UN-Catholic understanding of obedience.

Tied into this is the unwillingness to honestly look at the errors of Pope John Paul II and the devastating effects of those errors on the Church organization and the flock that he was supposed to protect the deposit of faith for.

It’s not just the denial of Catholic teaching on the papacy and denial of Catholic teaching on obedience. One who deliberately refuses to acknowledge the clear teaching of the Catholic Church and consistently promotes a false alternative is displaying contempt for Catholicism.

People who choose to separate from the chair of Peter are the living example of contempt for Catholicism. It’s not surprising that you would even attempt to correct the grammar of Pope John Paul II even though he spoke a number of languages with fluency. Once a situtaion enters the arena of “no hold barred” then the ugliness is manifest for all to see. If Almighty God ever offers me the opportunity to evaluate the actions of Pope John Paul II, I hope that I’ll have the humility to decline that offer.

 

[latinmasslover]

Far more meaningful is that at each juncture, Jesus corrected Peter, truly reflective of His promise: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It amazes me that some people are willing to diminish even Peter who was martyred as the first bishop of Rome in order to heap glory, not on Christ, but on a band of clerics who’ve been excommuinicated. It’s astonishing to me.

Who dimishes St. Peter? I, and others, bring this up to refute those who preach the idea that the Pope can make no mistake, that he can never make the wrong decision, that his every word and action is directed by the Holy Ghost.
The Church didn’t fall as a result of the mistakes of St. Peter, and She will never fall, no matter what. There are some who’s faith is not strong enough to admit that a Pope can goof up. These people need prayer.

You bring up a good point though; some do focus more on the dear Archbishop and the SSPX priests than Christ. However, taking the focus off of Christ isn’t exactly a popular “Traditionalist” thing to do, this error is found among *many *who are “in union with Rome.”

 

[catharina]

latinmasslover, from your post:

Quote:
So when I hear that, my ears perk up - SSPX. Overt love of the TLM, which I am amazed at, since the Mass we have is the same as the TLM, which a few accidental differences - you know them.

“Same sacrifice, ugly rubrics.”

Do you have idea how horrific that sounds? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - and you describe it as “ugly rubrics?” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and “ugly” in one thought?

What are you thinking?

 

[latinmasslover]

To defend M. Lefebvre when the Church has condemned his actions is an action that would go against my extremely well-informed conscience.

One, that sounds like pride. Two, there are many with “extremely well-informed” consciences that disagree with you.

That others would place themselves into the category of “defenders of Lefebvre” is a matter for their consciences. What part of that don’t you understand, Sir? If anyone’s actions might be described as manifesting an apparently “true contempt for Catholicism”, then look no further than M. Lefebvre and his followers who seem to have brought a new reign of prideful disobedience into the Church.

Only if your definition of “Catholicism” is - the belief that Jesus Christ delegates His every thought to the Pontiff, and prevents him from saying *anything *contrary to My will.

 

[catharina]

Who dimishes St. Peter? I, and others, bring this up to refute those who preach the idea that the Pope can make no mistake, that he can never make the wrong decision, that his every word and action is directed by the Holy Ghost.
The Church didn’t fall as a result of the mistakes of St. Peter, and She will never fall, no matter what. There are some who’s faith is not strong enough to admit that a Pope can goof up. These people need prayer.

You bring up a good point though; some do focus more on the dear Archbishop and the SSPX priests than Christ. However, taking the focus off of Christ isn’t exactly a popular “Traditionalist” thing to do, this error is found among *many *who are “in union with Rome.”

Yet I mentioned the way of Our Lord in guiding Peter. You mentioned Peter’s failings with no reference to the constancy of God’s loving inspiration.

It seems that your thinking is clouded at best.

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover, from your post:

Quote:
So when I hear that, my ears perk up - SSPX. Overt love of the TLM, which I am amazed at, since the Mass we have is the same as the TLM, which a few accidental differences - you know them.

“Same sacrifice, ugly rubrics.”

Do you have idea how horrific that sounds? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - and you describe it as “ugly rubrics?” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and “ugly” in one thought?

What are you thinking?

Don’t take my words out of context, please.

The Sacrifice is the same, beautiful thing.

The surrounding celebration is ugly. If it weren’t, the anti-Catholics wouldn’t prefer it to the TLM.

When in doubt, consider the thoughts of the enemy.

 

[catharina]

One, that sounds like pride. Two, there are many with “extremely well-informed” consciences that disagree with you.

Only if your definition of “Catholicism” is - the belief that Jesus Christ delegates His every thought to the Pontiff, and prevents him from saying *anything *contrary to My will.

Surely you’ve misspoken. You imagine that I should consider Christ as delegating His every thought to the Holy Father as long as it coincides with YOUR will?

Or perhaps you do think that.

 

[catharina]

Don’t take my words out of context, please.

The Sacrifice is the same, beautiful thing.

The surrounding celebration is ugly. If it weren’t, the anti-Catholics wouldn’t prefer it to the TLM.

When in doubt, consider the thoughts of the enemy.

My enemy is Satan (and his followers). It’s as simple as that.

 

[latinmasslover]

Yet I mentioned the way of Our Lord in guiding Peter. You mentioned Peter’s failings with no reference to the constancy of God’s loving inspiration.

It seems that your thinking is clouded at best.

Not really. I *chose *not to mention it because it seems that the inspiration that God gives him is all anyone knows about the relationship between Jesus and St. Peter.

 

[latinmasslover]

My enemy is Satan (and his followers). It’s as simple as that.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[catharina]

Not really. I *chose *not to mention it because it seems that the inspiration that God gives him is all anyone knows about the relationship between Jesus and St. Peter.

Then I’m sure you’ll correct your oversight in future posts.

 

[GerardP]

People who choose to separate from the chair of Peter are the living example of contempt for Catholicism.

Yet another slogan. “separating from the chair of Peter” is the buzz-phrase. This is tied into the false un-Catholic definition of obedience, that is being bandied about.

Why do you ignore St. Thomas Aquinas’ formulation of the true teaching of the Catholic Church?

It’s not surprising that you would even attempt to correct the grammar of Pope John Paul II even though he spoke a number of languages with fluency.

He didn’t write Ecclesia Dei, he signed it. What does his linguistic skills have to do with his error?

Once a situtaion enters the arena of “no hold barred” then the ugliness is manifest for all to see.

What about the suble ugliness of Catholics denying the teaching of the Catholic Church in favor or false teachings about obedience, the papacy, schism, etc?

If Almighty God ever offers me the opportunity to evaluate the actions of Pope John Paul II, I hope that I’ll have the humility to decline that offer.

Whatever, but it’s not your place or anyone else’s place to condemn someone for following the Church’s teachings that you claim you follow. Actions of a Pope can be judged. John XXII, Alexander VI, Pope Formosus, Pope Stephen VI, Benedict X. etc. Bad Popes.

 

[GerardP]

Then I’m sure you’ll correct your oversight in future posts.

Are you going to correct your oversight regarding St. Thomas’ teaching on obedience in the future?

 

[latinmasslover]

Surely you’ve misspoken. You imagine that I should consider Christ as delegating His every thought to the Holy Father as long as it coincides with YOUR will?

Or perhaps you do think that.

I side with 2000 years of the Church, the Saints of Heaven, the Holy Scriptures. You seem to place your lot with the fallible statements of the Popes of the last 40 years, who chose not to heed the warning of their predecessors. They dug their own grave, so to speak.

And stop making it an issue of my word vs. the Church. That is the argument people use when they have nothing left, and I’m sure that’s not the case here.

 

[catharina]

Yet another slogan. “separating from the chair of Peter” is the buzz-phrase. This is tied into the false un-Catholic definition of obedience, that is being bandied about.

Why do you ignore St. Thomas Aquinas’ formulation of the true teaching of the Catholic Church?

He didn’t write Ecclesia Dei, he signed it. What does his linguistic skills have to do with his error?

What about the suble ugliness of Catholics denying the teaching of the Catholic Church in favor or false teachings about obedience, the papacy, schism, etc?

Whatever, but it’s not your place or anyone else’s place to condemn someone for following the Church’s teachings that you claim you follow. Actions of a Pope can be judged. John XXII, Alexander VI, Pope Formosus, Pope Stephen VI, Benedict X. etc. Bad Popes.

If/when the Church teaches new facts regarding “bad Popes” as it has done in Church history in the past, then I’ll pay attention. When an excommunicated archbishop teaches about “bad Popes,” then I am free to ignore him. (In fact, I am bound to ignore him.)

 

[latinmasslover]

Then I’m sure you’ll correct your oversight in future posts.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have left out one point in order to emphasize the other. I will keep that in mind for future posts.

 

[catharina]

Are you going to correct your oversight regarding St. Thomas’ teaching on obedience in the future?

There is nothing to correct. I stand with a well-informed conscience as it is my duty to have a well-informed conscience. In saying that, I speak of my own conscience whether your colleague finds that to be suggestive of pride or you find that to be distasteful. All of my earliest teachers were vowed Dominicans and I still thank God for that fact.

Perhaps you’d be better off looking to your own conscience.

 

[latinmasslover]

If/when the Church teaches new facts regarding “bad Popes” as it has done in Church history in the past, then I’ll pay attention. When an excommunicated archbishop teaches about “bad Popes,” then I am free to ignore him. (In fact, I am bound to ignore him.)

Sorry, but you’re never free to ignore the truth, no matter who it comes from.

 

[catharina]

And stop making it an issue of my word vs. the Church. That is the argument people use when they have nothing left, and I’m sure that’s not the case here.

I beg your pardon but is that an order?