SSPX reading materials

[Sean_O_L]

katolik wrote:

Sir,
Having sex with your wife was considered sinful by heretics, never by the Church.

As in so many other matters – WRONG, katolik, WRONG. You have, simply, demonstrated your ignorance again!
Go and make a nice cup of coffee and make sure that you are sitting down when you read the contents of A Short History of Catholic Teaching on Birth Control

Scroll down to
Fifth Through Tenth Centuries

567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.

580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.

590-604-Pope Gregory &Mac179;the the Great&Mac178; said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).
(That is Pope Gregory the Great.)

Another source is Peter de Rosa’s Vicars of Christ (Which I do not recommend, generally.) However, it does contain some interesting material at times:

St Gregory I (the Great) {64th P.} (3 Sept. 590 - 11 Mar. 604}
He said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself - sex is only for the sake of children. Intercourse, he said, is sinful not only during pregnancy but during lactation, too. After a man slept with his wife, he may not enter a church until he had purged himself by penance and washing, for his will remains evil. Marriage is not sinful, but sex between partners assuredly is! (VOC p.452.) Writing to St Augustine in England: “Sexual desire is absolutely impossible without fault” - needs penance. (VOC pp.451/2.)

He said that unbaptised babies go straight to hell and suffer there for eternity. (VOC pp.289, 452 & 455.)

In any event, there have been some interesting positions taken in the course of history.

You wrote:
You have such nerve! Insulting people[Poles] whose ancestors fought the Nazi and Communist menaces while the world looked on and laughed. Yes, the world’s sloth caused the perfidious Jews to go under this fate and we are the lazy ones! Poles fought against them and all we got was sold for nothing to “good old Uncle Joe” Stalin. Don’t tell us that we are lazy, you deceitful lier. It is you jackasses who accepted hand communion and standing communion. In no other country as such in Poland, has there been an organized battle against these evil and irreverent things. It is a nice way to call our people lazy to take the finger of blame away from yourself. Once you attack one of my brothers, you attack me and you will receive 60 million slaps in the face, you incompetent moron, useful idiot of satan.

Sigh! I WAS right: English is not your first language, and you are ignorant of the meaning og English words. Previously, you alleged that I “cursed” St Thomas Aquinas. I challenged you to present evidence of your claim. Unfortunately, Sir, it is YOU who is the proven lair.

Your diatribe is, simply, puerile ignorance mixed with insanity. Nowhere have I “insulted Popes. In fact, it is I who defends the Polish Pope against YOUR calumnies. Nowhere have I described Popes as being “lazy”. But, from this you progress to “hand-communion”! By doing so, of course, you condemn (I will not be like you and say “cursed”) Jesus Christ and His Apostles who initiated Communion in the Hand.

I also advise that my six best friends over these past 30-40 years are still adherents to the SSPX, and we regularly celebrate Holy Days, birthdays and anniversaries – throughout the year. One of them is a Pope, Henri Imberg.

I am sorry for you katolik. You are so absolutely mixed-up and filled with hatred that you are unable to “see the forest for the trees.”

May the Lord Jesus Christ have Mercy on you.

 

[Sean_O_L]

BulldogCath wrote:

Nice post Katolik, I for one admire the Polish people for their bravery and devotion to Catholicism, never loosing the faith after all of those years of communism. You got suckered with the old line that all liberals use when they encounter anyone who is a conservative, a traditionalist, or whatever, they throw the old anti-semitic (when talking about religion) and Racist (when talking politics). They try to throw you off guard.

Yap, yap, yap! I can see your tail wagging from here.

Seriously, though, it would be hard to imagine a more anti-semetic racist bigot than the combination SSPXer/Feeneyite Thomas Sparks, of whom I wrote in “The Jews”

What an enormous change has been wrought in his newly reorgainzed website HERE

His “old” attitudes can still be seen by utilising The Internet Archive Wayback Machine as web.archive.org/

Having activated the above URL, type in the URL romancatholicism.org - then actvate the last entry for Feb 11, 2004.

How great is the Mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Sean_O_L]

RSiscoe wrote:

You may want to read this also. I found it interesting.

sspx.org/Negotiations/wh…d_to_kn ow.htm

Don’t hold your breath! While it is to be fervently hoped that the SSPXers will follow the example of the Campos reconciliations) the terms of the SSPX to the Vatican are impossible. Even if they DO negotiate a reconciliation - there is no guarantee that they will not “welch” on their agreement in the same way that Lefebvre did in 1988.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

I will add that this site has quite a bit of Audio in Gregorian Mass, etc. I use it when I pray in the nite, or have a need to concetrate and flush out distractions.

Ah, yes! This site also has “Archives”.

Why is it, do you think, that the SSPX “Archives” do NOT record the ordinands to the priesthood? They stopped “naming names” c. 1980.

Bishop Williamson admitted to 100 SSPX priests defecting up to the time of Lefebvre’s death.

 

[katolik]

That man has gone from one extreme to another. Look at one of his posts. This man is a liberal not a Catholic.

Early Church Fathers who Taught that All will be Saved

So I have to believe that all are saved? Yes, Mao, Stalin,Lenin are in heaven with God.
Sean O L:

BulldogCath wrote:

Yap, yap, yap! I can see your tail wagging from here.

Seriously, though, it would be hard to imagine a more anti-semetic racist bigot than the combination SSPXer/Feeneyite Thomas Sparks, of whom I wrote in “The Jews”

What an enormous change has been wrought in his newly reorgainzed website HERE

His “old” attitudes can still be seen by utilising The Internet Archive Wayback Machine as web.archive.org/

Having activated the above URL, type in the URL romancatholicism.org - then actvate the last entry for Feb 11, 2004.

How great is the Mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

katolik:

That man has gone from one extreme to another. Look at one of his posts. This man is a liberal not a Catholic.

Early Church Fathers who Taught that All will be Saved

So I have to believe that all are saved? Yes, Mao, Stalin,Lenin are in heaven with God.

Sean O L a LIBERAL?!?!?!? Take remedial reading lessons and ask your tutor to help you understand the concept of reading “critically.”

 

[gelsbern]

Sean O L:

…
I also advise that my six best friends over these past 30-40 years are still adherents to the SSPX, and we regularly celebrate Holy Days, birthdays and anniversaries – throughout the year.** One of them is a Pope, Henri Imberg.**

I’m just trying to figure out who Pope Henri Imberg is. I can’t find him anywhere.

 

[katolik]

JKirkLVNV:

Sean O L a LIBERAL?!?!?!? Take remedial reading lessons and ask your tutor to help you understand the concept of reading “critically.”

Moron, to say that John O’L is a liberal is obvious.
I am talking about Thomas Sparks and his website. romancatholicism.org All our saved! Who cares that the SSPX is “in schism” since we are all saved, nothing we do can make us go to hell!

 

[katolik]

Sean O L:

katolik wrote:

As in so many other matters – WRONG, katolik, WRONG. You have, simply, demonstrated your ignorance again!
Go and make a nice cup of coffee and make sure that you are sitting down when you read the contents of A Short History of Catholic Teaching on Birth Control

Scroll down to
Fifth Through Tenth Centuries

567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.

580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.

590-604-Pope Gregory &Mac179;the the Great&Mac178; said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).
(That is Pope Gregory the Great.)

Another source is Peter de Rosa’s Vicars of Christ (Which I do not recommend, generally.) However, it does contain some interesting material at times:

In any event, there have been some interesting positions taken in the course of history.

Sigh! I WAS right: English is not your first language, and you are ignorant of the meaning og English words. Previously, you alleged that I “cursed” St Thomas Aquinas. I challenged you to present evidence of your claim. Unfortunately, Sir, it is YOU who is the proven lair.

Your diatribe is, simply, puerile ignorance mixed with insanity. Nowhere have I “insulted Popes. In fact, it is I who defends the Polish Pope against YOUR calumnies. Nowhere have I described Popes as being “lazy”. But, from this you progress to “hand-communion”! By doing so, of course, you condemn (I will not be like you and say “cursed”) Jesus Christ and His Apostles who initiated Communion in the Hand.

I also advise that my six best friends over these past 30-40 years are still adherents to the SSPX, and we regularly celebrate Holy Days, birthdays and anniversaries – throughout the year. One of them is a Pope, Henri Imberg.

I am sorry for you katolik. You are so absolutely mixed-up and filled with hatred that you are unable to “see the forest for the trees.”

May the Lord Jesus Christ have Mercy on you.

So now you call me hateful? Lord have mercy on you!

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNT wrote:

Ah, yes! This site also has “Archives”.

Why is it, do you think, that the SSPX “Archives” do NOT record the ordinands to the priesthood? They stopped “naming names” c. 1980.

Bishop Williamson admitted to 100 SSPX priests defecting up to the time of Lefebvre’s death.

How many were turned to sedev. theory?
Ah, it would have been a such a blessing if the same number of Child flesh predators in the VATII church priesthood would have done the same instead of remaining in the flock to devour the lambs.
How many souls of the lambs, how much of the patrimony of the Faithful devestated, how many cease to consider conversion for lack of “defecting” but instead “protected” and promoted…by P VI & JPII’s wisely chosen bishops.
Gotta love the new logic. Yes indeed.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

katolik:

Moron, to say that John O’L is a liberal is obvious.
I am talking about Thomas Sparks and his website. romancatholicism.org All our saved! Who cares that the SSPX is “in schism” since we are all saved, nothing we do can make us go to hell!

Then learn to write with greater clarity, Katolick! Look, I’ll stop giving you such a hard time (for my lack of charity, forgive me and I realize I’m being uncharitible) when you stop arguing so jingoistically and when you stop posting stuff that isn’t really an attempt to engage in a dialogue, but rather to start a fight. You seem to have an almost cynical assumption that people here are, by and large, going to fall for every thing you post, no matter how outrageous the source. Your assumption about the IQ’s of your fellow Catholics is more than a little arrogant. Stop posting half truths, as in your thread the “NO Mass in Germany.” And stop posting, like Eddie, the same stuff over and over. You also seem to be assuming we can’t read.

 

[gelsbern]

JKirkLVNV:

Sean O L a LIBERAL?!?!?!? Take remedial reading lessons and ask your tutor to help you understand the concept of reading “critically.”

I don’t think he was calling Sean O L a liberal, I believe he was calling the person who wrote romancatholicism.org a liberal.

I could be wrong, but I deal with a lot of people who speak english as a second language and this is what I get from what katolik is saying.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

RSiscoe wrote:

Don’t hold your breath! While it is to be fervently hoped that the SSPXers will follow the example of the Campos reconciliations) the terms of the SSPX to the Vatican are impossible. Even if they DO negotiate a reconciliation - there is no guarantee that they will not “welch” on their agreement in the same way that Lefebvre did in 1988.

I been there too, so I know what you mean. Many a time I have in my sordid life agreed with the devil, and thankfully, at the very last moment, I welched on him.
Sometimes that old conscience kicks in just in the “nick of time” as Bonnie R.'s song goes.
Of course there’s no guarantee that JPII’s declararion that handling the Sacred Species is a “privilege” of the the ordained will be welched on, or EEM’s will not be welched and become EM’s, or that altar girls will remain banned, or that the ICEL’s “faithful” translation will turn out to be anything but, or that the Gregorian chant and Latin will maintain “pride of place” in the Latin Rite and become guitars and ever mutating vernacular, or that EP #1 will be effectively only a decoy showpiece and EP 2 will be the defacto standard.
I’m not saying all that will happen, just that it might happen. That M. Lefebv. is the one that was predicting such things.
Gotta love the new logic. Yes indeed.
We are now down to “it was true only in the moment when I said it” vs the “understood in the context of those times” 30 yrs ago. B. Clinton was a closet VATII son and was rewarded by receiving communion without professing or confessing. No welching on the canon there either .

 

[Sean_O_L]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L
…
I also advise that my six best friends over these past 30-40 years are still adherents to the SSPX, and we regularly celebrate Holy Days, birthdays and anniversaries – throughout the year. One of them is a Pope, Henri Imberg.

I’m just trying to figure out who Pope Henri Imberg is. I can’t find him anywhere.

That is an oooppppps!
Fingers: that should be one keyboard line down - “Pope” should read “Pole”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

kwitz:

I belong to a faith group that meets once a month. Topics for discussion are chosen by the host couple and vary from newsworthy (ie St. Stans controversy) to sacramental (ie, meaning of Reconcilliation) to offbeat (ie. exorcism). We are fortunate to have a priest that joins us.

The April meeting is at our house and I thought a discussion of what I describe as “radical-traditionalism” would be interesting. Before this forum, I was only familiar with the schism in general terms but have found the various “discussions” here to be interesting and thought others might like to know more.

What I need is some reference materials to hand out to people so that everyone can get up to speed a bit before our discussion. I am looking for easy to read, short materials. Most importantly, they must present the information from the viewpoint of loyalty to Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II. Simply put, I have no intention of being “fair and balanced” on this issue because in my mind there is only one side. I’d welcome any suggestions of what to present to the group to open up the discussion.

Also, if anyone has any other discussion ideas for future meetings, I’d be all ears. We’ve had this group together for almost 15 years now; we’ve covered many topics but I know the subject of Catholicism is limitless.

Thanks,
Kris

If you’re able to show them stuff on the computer, you should display, from these forums, Katolik’s thread the “NO Mass in Germany,” which is a tissue of radtrad lies and more than adequately demonstrates their willingness to engage in misinformation to disturb the faithful. Check it out.

 

[Sean_O_L]

katolick wrote

That man has gone from one extreme to another. Look at one of his posts. This man is a liberal not a Catholic.

Early Church Fathers who Taught that All will be Saved

1. You cannot stop yourself from being judgemental about the state of the soul of another person, can you! You have NO right to judge that Thomas Sparks is not a Catholic.
2. One can judge another persons words and actions - I have therefore judged that the words and actions of Thomas Sparks were bigotedly racist and anti-semetic. This was done on a basis of facts in hand.
3. It was an objective fact that, whilst in that state, he was an SSPX supporter AND a radical Feeneyite.
4. It is an observable fact that he has had a complete reversal on opinions previously held. As he now quotes the Pope and from the normative Mass of the Roman liturgy, I assume that - like many, many other former adherents to the schismatic and excommunicated SSPX - he is now in full communion with Rome.

Again, I thank God for His Mercy, and hope that people such as katolic, Eddy Arent, gelsbern, etc. will likewise return to Holy Mother Church, the Ark of Salvation, as speedily as is possible.

 

[Sean_O_L]

katolik wrote:

So now you call me hateful? Lord have mercy on you!

Facts are Facts. You are full of hate. I am sorry that you are full of hate. I hope that you will soon realize that to be full of hate is unproductive. I hope you come to understand that one filled with hate and Heaven are incompatible. I hope that you attain Salvation.

 

[Sean_O_L]

How many were turned to sedev. theory?
Ah, it would have been a such a blessing if the same number of Child flesh predators in the VATII church priesthood would have done the same instead of remaining in the flock to devour the lambs.
How many souls of the lambs, how much of the patrimony of the Faithful devestated, how many cease to consider conversion for lack of “defecting” but instead “protected” and promoted…by P VI & JPII’s wisely chosen bishops.
Gotta love the new logic. Yes indeed.

Well, I can name some names of those who went sede.

I can also name some names of some current SSPX priests who were accused of homosexuality.

I can also name names of seminarians accused of homosexuality who were, nevertheless ordained by Lefebvre.

I can also name the name of a current SSPX priest who killed a person whilst dangerously speeding.

I can also name names of SSPX priests (plural) who left the priesthood following adulterous affairs.

I can also name the name of an SSPX priest who accused another SSPX priest of incest. One of them was right and one of them was wrong.

Do you want to go down this path? I can.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

You may want to read this also. I found it interesting.

sspx.org/Negotiations/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

I find most things written from the excommunicated Msgr Fellay to be rather deceitful.

"**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. **(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

 

[RSiscoe]

TNT:

You can hear most of this on Audio at:
Bishop Bernard Fellay : Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X
Update on Society’s Current Standing with Rome - Nov 2004 (11.7 mb)

He has quite a pleasing “French” accent…"

Actually… In 1999 Bishop Fellay gave a talk at the SSPX Church in Dickinson Texas (near where I used to live). After the talk I went into the sacristy to speak with him. He was talking to another priest and had a thick brooklyn accent. When he saw me he immediately switched to his phony French accent. Then, after leaving, I stayed near the door to listen, and heard him again switch back to his normal brooklyn accent. What a phony!