SSPX Teaching Video

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayforMallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NicPais83 said:
Ok, round two:

The left side of Religious freedom affirms that the Church is the true faith. The right side reads as an attack on institutions that do not allow for a practice of the faith, namely Soviet Russia. On collegiality, the two sides do not even talk about the same issue. One says that the bishops do not have supreme authority equal to the Pope. The other side state that supreme authority resides in the bishops in union with the Pope…along the lines of the Magesterium of the Church. On Truth, Christ has given all truth to the Church, but we are still called to embrace our fellow man and search out the truth in our lives. Truth is an objective issue, given by Christ to the Church. Life can give the appearance of gray, but in all moral issues the objective truth is there. It is wrong to say that abortion is acceptable. Searching for the truth is applying what Christ taught us to the modern world. Abortion is murder. Embryonic stem cell harvesting is immoral. These are truths that need to be sought out with man so that he sees as Christ does.

On the next section, the one titled Ecumenism, again no citations. The Canadian Bishops are known for their liberal views and schismatic twisting of teaching, so this is hardly evidence.

On the Modern World, I take issue with the statement: These post-Vatican II reforms include the abandonment of a distinctive religious habit for nuns, brothers and priests, a softening of the “offensive” teachings on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality, and the increasing involvement of the Church in socialist “causes.” All of these were condemned Post-Vatican II, such as in Humana Vitae (which is NEVER mentioned here) and in Rome’s condemnation of Liberation Theology. Likewise, it fails to mention John Paul II working with the Polish Solidarity movement to bring down the USSR. Again, any statement that says that the Second Vatican Council condones abortion disregards Humana Vitae, and disregards everything that Rome has stated about abortion since. It is a mortal sin to procure an abortion, period. On collegiality, the article contradicts itself since these bishops were NOT in union with the Pope (see the article’s section on collegiality earlier for citation).

As for the remainder, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Many times the article talks about “a text” without stating the specific text or citing it. It mentions that Campos, Brazil has had massive growth due to keeping the Tridentine Liturgy, but does not give statistics, or any data at all. It mentions Fr. Ratzinger, but does not elaborate on what his role in the Council was.
Click to expand...
Well, I give you due respect for taking the time to read it all…it will take me time to make a detailed response…right now I am having too much fun answering these other posts with short and snappy answers…
 
piouswoman said:
I appreciate you good intent in posting that, but I must say that I would take everything I read on EWTN with a grain of salt. May I recommend this book to you to read? It is very insightful.
networkgonewrong.com/
Click to expand...
He’s not quoting EWTN, he’s using their document library. Try the following link, it says the same thing:

zenit.org/rssenglish-20070

It doesn’t matter what you think of EWTN, since EWTN didn’t write the document. His Holiness did.
 
consumedconvert said:
I’d say that speaks very much to the credit of those who desired the use of a TLM but remained 100% faithful and obedient to Rome. They are a credit to us.
Click to expand...
Archbishop Lefebvre remained 100% faithful to Rome. You can argue the obedience part, but not the faithfulness.
 
EddieArent said:
By defending Tradition (e.g. attacking modern errors), the SSPX are defending the prior popes and are doing so out of love and charity for the current pope. They aren’t abandoning him like the sedevacantists or the conclasvists who have elected their anti-pope. Instead we see a desire to have Christ reign not only in the heart of Pope Benedict XVI, but in all clergy and laymen as well.

Let’s not have a shell game as there are bishops so called in union with Rome that many people question if they are Catholic. Supposidly the then Cardinal Ratzinger was irrate when hearing that Kasper was going to be elevated as Cardinal, for instance. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t want the situation. None of the priests did. But so it is and they continue to fight the good fight.

There is a cry of obediance. But obediant to what? The unchanged, Catholic faith or the revolutionary one dubbed by a Cardinal as the “Counciliar Church?” The liturgy that developed organically, or the liturgy that a number of Protestants helped the suspected Free Mason, Archbishop Bugnini “fabricate?” This “obediance,” if you wish to invoke the English martyrs, is in fact present today. The present martyrs are those being falsely accused and generally not physically martyred, but through words while many folks are following the modern day Thomas Cranmers. Just compare the New Mass and the reformer’s Mass as the late Michael Davies did. Though the texts are no doubt different in many ways, but the two have in common are what exactly was stripped from the liturgy (e.g. the prayers at the foot of the altar, the offertory prayers, etc.) that has one shaking their head.
Click to expand...
My My…this is totally ridiculous…Free mason Bugnini, yes suspected? Wasn’t, the man who ordained Lefebve a “suspected” freemason also. So why didn’t you tell that part.

Wow, then a freemason wrote the New Mass and the one who is illegally ordained** by a freemason **is "fighting to save the old mass. That is certainly a twist of fate, isn’t it? But it does explain why the church is under such violent attacks. Both were connected to the freemasons.

You "present day, alive martyrs, of the SSPX do need to read articles and literature by BOTH sides. All I see is stuff written by KNOWN SSPXes. Talk about biased “facts”.

I do see quite alot of ANGER coming from these SSPXers. I am terribly sorry folks, But Lefebve will never be a saint. But JP11 is definitely in the works.

Christ does NOT need ANYONE to do his work, If it is wrong, HE WILL CORRECT IT. He does NOT need to SSPX to “SAVE” His church. Which is as ridiculous an idea as anyone has ever heard of.

They are in schism, they are granting anullments, they are excommunated. They are renegades trying their hardest to “prove” their right…not that the Latin mass is right…but that THEY are. and everyone else is wrong…

Sorry, I’ll wait on the Lord, IF the SSPX is right, they will stand…If the Pope is right, then he will stand.

Will the REAL faith to please stand up.?..(drum roll)

(My money is on the Pope)😃
 
I can go on a lot more with my analysis of your article about the changes with the Second Vatican Council, but it is hard to fit everything into such a small posting. The bottom line is this: the article hinges on comparison with Encyclicals using single lines at most, along with anecdotal evidence. The article does not ever state, for example that the changes began at the French Revolution. The article tries hard to draw parallels with the Council and the French Revolution, but it is again backed in anecdotal evidence. Conclusions about people’s motives and accusations aimed at the Magesterium are all very sensitive things, but the article fails to even list names of particular Cardinals that were dangerous and affected by modernism. Unless a type of smoking gun, as you will, is given, such as a direct quotation from Cardinal John Doe, dated 1955, stating that he wanted to down play Mary and destroy the Liturgy, and the text that he worked on is called out by name and the text is actually given, then I am suspicious as to how factual this article is.
 
piouswoman said:
Well, I give you due respect for taking the time to read it all…it will take me time to make a detailed response…right now I am having too much fun answering these other posts with short and snappy answers…
Click to expand...
You asked me to read it, so I did. I am trying to show you the respect that is due. I always believed that if I am going to make any type of argument, that I have to try to first understand what the person I am debating against believes. Let me tell you, from experience in other debates, Karl Marx is a BORING read.
 
Auntie_M said:
My My…this is totally ridiculous…Free mason Bugnini, yes suspected? Wasn’t, the man who ordained Lefebve a “suspected” freemason also. So why didn’t you tell that part.

Wow, then a freemason wrote the New Mass and the one who is illegally ordained** by a freemason **is "fighting to save the old mass. That is certainly a twist of fate, isn’t it? But it does explain why the church is under such violent attacks. Both were connected to the freemasons.

You "present day, alive martyrs, of the SSPX do need to read articles and literature by BOTH sides. All I see is stuff written by KNOWN SSPXes. Talk about biased “facts”.

I do see quite alot of ANGER coming from these SSPXers. I am terribly sorry folks, But Lefebve will never be a saint. But JP11 is definitely in the works.

Christ does NOT need ANYONE to do his work, If it is wrong, HE WILL CORRECT IT. He does NOT need to SSPX to “SAVE” His church. Which is as ridiculous an idea as anyone has ever heard of.

They are in schism, they are granting anullments, they are excommunated. They are renegades trying their hardest to “prove” their right…not that the Latin mass is right…but that THEY are. and everyone else is wrong…

Sorry, I’ll wait on the Lord, IF the SSPX is right, they will stand…If the Pope is right, then he will stand.

Will the REAL faith to please stand up.?..(drum roll)

(My money is on the Pope)😃
Click to expand...
Hmm, twice you have stated the SSPX is granting annulments.

Got a link ?
 
piouswoman said:
Actually, you make jest, but quite a bit has been written about the enemies of the Church and Her traditions and their desire to destroy not only the Latin Mass but all of our traditions.

Here is something quite worthy of your time:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Survivals_and_New_Arrivals:_The_Old_and_New_Enemies_of_the_Catholic_Church/Chapter_IV
Click to expand...
Dear Dear piouswoman, Don’t you know by now that the wikisouce.org IS NOT a trustworthy site. It plainly states that ANYONE can “edict” their infomation. And it does happen.

Nice try, though…👍
 
consumedconvert said:
He’s not quoting EWTN, he’s using their document library. Try the following link, it says the same thing:

zenit.org/rssenglish-20070

It doesn’t matter what you think of EWTN, since EWTN didn’t write the document. His Holiness did.
Click to expand...
Oh, my apologies to all involved. However, I must say that here:

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

That I do not find that this statement in any way “sinks” Archbishop Levebvre. Pope Benedict is in fact, stating what the SSPX has said itself, all along…that the problem goes much deeper than the TLM, it is about the dogmas of our faith.
 
I_Believe said:
Hmm, twice you have stated the SSPX is granting annulments.

Got a link ?
Click to expand...
If you would read something OTHER than SSPX propaganda, you would know that also.🙂

You didn’t mention the free masons, why…🤷
 
Auntie_M said:
Dear Dear piouswoman, Don’t you know by now that the wikisouce.org IS NOT a trustworthy site. It plainly states that ANYONE can “edict” their infomation. And it does happen.

Nice try, though…👍
Click to expand...
Did you not notice that what I had posted was the writing of Hillaire Belloc?
 
Auntie_M said:
My My…this is totally ridiculous…Free mason Bugnini, yes suspected? Wasn’t, the man who ordained Lefebve a “suspected” freemason also. So why didn’t you tell that part.

Wow, then a freemason wrote the New Mass and the one who is illegally ordained** by a freemason **is "fighting to save the old mass. That is certainly a twist of fate, isn’t it? But it does explain why the church is under such violent attacks. Both were connected to the freemasons.

You "present day, alive martyrs, of the SSPX do need to read articles and literature by BOTH sides. All I see is stuff written by KNOWN SSPXes. Talk about biased “facts”.

I do see quite alot of ANGER coming from these SSPXers. I am terribly sorry folks, But Lefebve will never be a saint. But JP11 is definitely in the works.

Christ does NOT need ANYONE to do his work, If it is wrong, HE WILL CORRECT IT. He does NOT need to SSPX to “SAVE” His church. Which is as ridiculous an idea as anyone has ever heard of.

They are in schism, they are granting anullments, they are excommunated. They are renegades trying their hardest to “prove” their right…not that the Latin mass is right…but that THEY are. and everyone else is wrong…

Sorry, I’ll wait on the Lord, IF the SSPX is right, they will stand…If the Pope is right, then he will stand.

Will the REAL faith to please stand up.?..(drum roll)

(My money is on the Pope)😃
Click to expand...
I see quite a lot of anger coming from you. All caps does tend to transmit that emotion.

The comparison of Lefebvre’s ordination (and consecration as Bishop) by a purported Freemason does not compare to the Freemason Bugnini and his direct involvement in the development of the NOM. Freemasonry isn’t a disease that one catches, and it isn’t passed on through ordination.
 
piouswoman said:
Oh, my apologies to all involved. However, I must say that here:

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.

That I do not find that this statement in any way “sinks” Archbishop Levebvre. Pope Benedict is in fact, stating what the SSPX has said itself, all along…that the problem goes much deeper than the TLM, it is about the dogmas of our faith.
Click to expand...
I hate to be a nag, but I am still very curious as to whether you view canonisation as an exercise of the Magisterium and therefore never mistaken.
 
NicPais83 said:
I can go on a lot more with my analysis of your article about the changes with the Second Vatican Council, but it is hard to fit everything into such a small posting. The bottom line is this: the article hinges on comparison with Encyclicals using single lines at most, along with anecdotal evidence. The article does not ever state, for example that the changes began at the French Revolution. The article tries hard to draw parallels with the Council and the French Revolution, but it is again backed in anecdotal evidence. Conclusions about people’s motives and accusations aimed at the Magesterium are all very sensitive things, but the article fails to even list names of particular Cardinals that were dangerous and affected by modernism. Unless a type of smoking gun, as you will, is given, such as a direct quotation from Cardinal John Doe, dated 1955, stating that he wanted to down play Mary and destroy the Liturgy, and the text that he worked on is called out by name and the text is actually given, then I am suspicious as to how factual this article is.
Click to expand...
It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church”
sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm
 
piouswoman said:
Actually, you make jest, but quite a bit has been written about the enemies of the Church and Her traditions and their desire to destroy not only the Latin Mass but all of our traditions.

Here is something quite worthy of your time:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Survivals_and_New_Arrivals:_The_Old_and_New_Enemies_of_the_Catholic_Church/Chapter_IV
Click to expand...
Actually I was not jesting.
You support conspiracy theory.
Interesting.

Please spare everyone your useless wiki links -
and the raft of pro-sspx links too. (That would be nice.)
 
laudamus_te said:
Archbishop Lefebvre remained 100% faithful to Rome. You can argue the obedience part, but not the faithfulness.
Click to expand...
I really think you cannot be “faithful” without being obedient.

Obedience to the Pope is TRADITION. Anyone who has separated themselves from the Pope is NOT following Tradition. You cannot say you uphold Tradition while leaving out some of the other parts of Traditions. Which to me, would negate your whole movement.

And, whether you all realize it or not, YOU have separated yourselves from Rome. 🤷
 
laudamus_te said:
And when you don’t have a valid argument, you insult.
Click to expand...
When I read posts that are twisted versions of truth (that is, distortions) I do my best to demolish their convoluted logic. I’m very sorry if that action hurts your feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top