SSPX Proselytism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jo_Benedict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please note:

This is not a thread for discussing the SSPX. This is a thread for explaining a rule of this forum, which is that there is to be no proselytism for the SSPX in this forum. It was left open, not to provide another opportunity to discuss the SSPX, but to allow anyone with questions about this policy to receive clarification.

Please return to the original topic. Thank you.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
See what your post started!😛 😉 Just playing with you.

Is it considered proselytizing to have, say “pray for the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre” as a signature?

And in the next traditional forum rebuke, should the need arise, could you not name only the traditional Catholics for lack of charity? (I’m not smarting off, I’m asking with all due respect.:))
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
“And after private and public warnings the Archbishop went ahead with the consecrations.”

Wasn’t one of the consecrations approved by Rome? Why did that bishop get excommunicated too? Something doesn’t add up.
Click to expand...
One bishop approved by the Vatican to be ordained on a date decided upon by the Vatican was the deal. The Vatican didn’t approve the number, the bishops or the timing. The SSPX likes to assume that the Vatican would never have done the one which they actually have not proof to support. The Vatican spoke to the fact that they thought it would be prudent for them to have one.
 
bear06 said:
One bishop approved by the Vatican to be ordained on a date decided upon by the Vatican was the deal. The Vatican didn’t approve the number, the bishops or the timing. The SSPX likes to assume that the Vatican would never have done the one which they actually have not proof to support. The Vatican spoke to the fact that they thought it would be prudent for them to have one.
Click to expand...
One was approved?

I doubt that. Please provide your sources.
 
bear06 said:
Mea culpa. Must read all posts before responding. Must read all posts before responding…
Click to expand...
Really. You have time to read hundreds of posts on a particular thread. I understand that there can be up to 1,000. That’s a lot of reading.
 
latinmasslover said:
“I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.” Gospel of St. Luke

“And He spoke the word openly. And Peter taking Him began to rebuke him. Who turning about and seeing his disciples, threatened Peter, saying: Go behind me, Satan, because thou savourest not the things that are of God but that are of men.” Gospel of St. Mark

“And He saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with Me?..The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Gospel of St. Matthew

“For this was I born,and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.” Gospel of St. John

Meaning? To obey/follow the example of a pope isn’t always pleasing to God or beneficial to the soul. The truth doesn’t change, and adhering to the truth is what counts in the eyes of God, hence He told us we’re to worship in spirit and truth.
Click to expand...
Peter wasn’t pope then; the Church wasn’t established. The Holy Spirit wasn’t here. Jesus was.
 
Your_Abbott said:
Does the Moderator have the stomach to read all this stuff?

If it is for the Moderator, direct it to her directly via email then, otherwise, it is up for grabs.
Click to expand...
then quit posting off the topic. The moderator just said this on the last page. my question is appropriate here, as it regards the orginal post. start a new thread if you wish to continue this any of the strayed debates.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
It would seem to me - and perhaps to the moderators too - that when one proposes that M. Lefebvre should be considered a saint, then that is proselytizing for sspx. (Yet that sentiment has appeared numerous times in this forum.) If Jo Benedict corrects me on this then I stand corrected. Otherwise I hope that such thinking is not expressed in print.
Click to expand...
 
bear06 said:
One bishop approved by the Vatican to be ordained on a date decided upon by the Vatican was the deal. The Vatican didn’t approve the number, the bishops or the timing. The SSPX likes to assume that the Vatican would never have done the one which they actually have not proof to support. The Vatican spoke to the fact that they thought it would be prudent for them to have one.
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. Here is the link:

unavoce.org/protocol.htm
 
catharina said:
It would seem to me - and perhaps to the moderators too - that when one proposes that M. Lefebvre should be considered a saint, then that is proselytizing for sspx. (Yet that sentiment has appeared numerous times in this forum.) If Jo Benedict corrects me on this then I stand corrected. Otherwise I hope that such thinking is not expressed in print.
Click to expand...
:tsktsk: :rolleyes:
 
ProVobis said:
:confused:

We can see your motives for posting but isn’t this an absurd statement to make?
Click to expand...
My goodness, you can’t mean that. He’s quoting Jesus Christ!

"John 14:
25
“I have told you this while I am with you.
26
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.”
 
catharina said:
My goodness, you can’t mean that. He’s quoting Jesus Christ!

"John 14:
25
“I have told you this while I am with you.
26
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.”
Click to expand...
Not sure I follow you here. The Holy Spirit is God, isn’t He? And as such, He was, is, and always will be. As least that’s what I’ve been taught. Who is Abbott to tell us differently?
 
ProVobis said:
Not sure I follow you here. The Holy Spirit is God, isn’t He? And as such, He was, is, and always will be. As least that’s what I’ve been taught. Who is Abbott to tell us differently?
Click to expand...
Absolutely true that the Holy Spirit is God yet it is Jesus Christ Himself Who promised to send the Spirit to the Church in a lasting way after His return to the Father. I’m not saying we can understand such things, but what Jesus said is what Jesus said. Yes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top