SSPX Teaching Video

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayforMallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NicPais83 said:
The SSPX faithful and Priests are not in schism, but the Bishops that were ordained in 1988 in France are excommunicated. The Priests are validly ordained, but the Masses of the SSPX are illicit. Basically, Rome has said that we are not to attend SSPX Masses, unless it is our only option. If you have a Novus Ordo in Communion with Rome, you are to attend that before going to an SSPX Mass. If it is the Tridentine Mass you want, there’s the FSSP, and as of last year any Priest can licitly offer the Tridentine Mass.

The Church cannot be infected with errors, as a core belief of ours is that Christ will never abandon the Church. You are contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...
Bravo - and ditto.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
It seems like there is a gathering of those who are want to call themselves the remnant. The keepers of the true faith. Next we will have Indiana Jones riding up on a horse, a tank, a plane or whatever to help save them. Sorry for this mirth, but this is “Left behind” all over again.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
The only ones that I know of who refer to traditional Catholics as the remnant are those such as you Deacon Ed…and you and those who never have any thing good to say about traditional Catholics, but fall all over yourselves with ecumenical good will towards those of other religions can be called nothing short of hypocritical. I’ve always wondered what fuels such hatred towards those who just want the true traditional Catholic faith, just as did popes, bishops, priests, saints, martyrs, doctors of the church and our forebears for nearly two thousand years.
 
piouswoman said:
The only ones that I know of who refer to traditional Catholics as the remnant are those such as you Deacon Ed…and you and those who never have any thing good to say about traditional Catholics, but fall all over yourselves with ecumenical good will towards those of other religions can be called nothing short of hypocritical. I’ve always wondered what fuels such hatred towards those who just want the true traditional Catholic faith, just as did popes, bishops, priests, saints, martyrs, doctors of the church and our forebears for nearly two thousand years.
Click to expand...
Deacon Ed, responsible for “hatred?” Ah, no.

Dreadful rant, piouswoman. Work on that piety, maybe?
 
piouswoman said:
Deacon Ed…and you and those who never have any thing good to say about traditional Catholics,

but fall all over yourselves with ecumenical good will towards those of other religions can be called nothing short of hypocritical.

I’ve always wondered what fuels such hatred towards those who just want the true traditional Catholic faith …
Click to expand...
Rant? See above.
Untrue, unkind, unworthy exaggeration = RANT.

(Especially when coupled with a personal attack. RANT.)
 
catharina said:
Rant? See above.
Untrue, unkind, unworthy exaggeration = RANT.

(Especially when coupled with a personal attack. RANT.)
Click to expand...
No, you are quite wrong…that is no rant, it is the truth. I welcome you to find anything that Deacon Ed has said favorably or with kindness about the SSPX.

Sorry, this isn’t about kowtowing to your expectations and your false and erroneous ideas of what constitutes true Catholic doctrine…it is quite hypocritical of you to try to pin me. Again…show me your proof, and while you are at it, let me see some of your kind and charitable comments regarding the SSPX. I have a feeling I will be waiting until doomsday.
 
piouswoman said:
The only ones that I know of who refer to traditional Catholics as the remnant are those such as you Deacon Ed…and you and those who never have any thing good to say about traditional Catholics, but fall all over yourselves with ecumenical good will towards those of other religions can be called nothing short of hypocritical. I’ve always wondered what fuels such hatred towards those who just want the true traditional Catholic faith, just as did popes, bishops, priests, saints, martyrs, doctors of the church and our forebears for nearly two thousand years.
Click to expand...
My dear pious woman. As much as it may shock you, I consider myself a traditional Catholic to the very core of my being. I follow, believe, teach and practice only that which the Holy Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. That and nothing more. What I do object to and will resist with every fiber of my being is a group, not in union with the Holy Mother Church telling others that its OK to watch one of their propaganda videos and acting like they are enlightened by doing so. I do not condemn those people who are part of SSPX. I pray for them that the Holy Spirit may enter their hearts and lead them back to the One, True ,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Please give me an example from any of my postings on CAF where I fall all over myself towards other religions. I do not condemn these people. Condemnation is not mine or yours for that matter for as we judge, so shall we be judged. I have no hatred towards anyone of any religion. Please show me an example of hate. Have I been miffed with people spouting error as truth. You can definitely believe that. Especially from those who should know better. But hate - well that is a bit much. And believe it or not I do not hate you… I pray for you and all others, and ask that you do the same for me, because I know I need them
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
piouswoman said:
No, you are quite wrong…that is no rant, it is the truth. I welcome you to find anything that Deacon Ed has said favorably or with kindness about the SSPX.

Sorry, this isn’t about kowtowing to your expectations and your false and erroneous ideas of what constitutes true Catholic doctrine…it is quite hypocritical of you to try to pin me. Again…show me your proof, and while you are at it, let me see some of your kind and charitable comments regarding the SSPX. I have a feeling I will be waiting until doomsday.
Click to expand...
Again, as Deacon Ed and I and others have stated (more than once) the sspx bishops, including the leader /bishop at the head of sspx are in fact, excommunicated schismatics. As it happens, members of sspx are not excommunicated schismatics. That’s as kind and charitable as a remark can get. The founder of sspx, M. Lefebvre, died while still publicly excommunicated as a schismatic. Yes, truth is truth.
 
NicPais83 said:
IHe makes one MAJOR error that no one should have made, regardless of SSPX or not. He talks about lay people preaching, but with these lay people being ordained as deacons. A deacon, both before and after the Second Vatican Council was NEVER considered lay. Deacons are one of the three Major Orders of the Latin Church: Bishop, Priest, Deacon. The Deacon’s role is service to the people, as shown in Acts with St. Stephan, and has the faculties to give the homily. If the Deacon were not clergy, then he would not be ordained and he would not be dressed with a stole, as can be seen in both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Masses.
Click to expand...
That is true but we never had married deacons. That is what Father was talking about. We had the transitional deacons with the different kinds like the subdeacon. These men were deacons who were on their way to the priesthood.

The permanent married deacon is a novelty not part of traditional Catholicism in centuries.

They are ordained, but the priest calls them lay people because it is such a novelty to have a married man with family, who would otherwise be a lay man, raised to the deaconate.
 
saint_rafael said:
That is true but we never had married deacons. That is what Father was talking about. We had the transitional deacons with the different kinds like the subdeacon. These men were deacons who were on their way to the priesthood.

The permanent married deacon is a novelty not part of traditional Catholicism in centuries.

They are ordained, but the priest calls them lay people because it is such a novelty to have a married man with family, who would otherwise be a lay man, raised to the deaconate.
Click to expand...
we did have married priests and married deacons. You admit it yourself above…we just haven’t had them “in centuries.”

The priest also says we didn’t allow priest to marry, which implies that the eastern Churches did, which is also not true. Married men were ordained, not priests getting married, just like happens on occasion today, in the Latin Church.

His sermon is good, but there are incorrect comments, or at least misleading comments in it.

I am very much in favor of tradition, and especially the Tridentine mass, I love it very much, but some “Traditionalists” need to figure out that Western Catholic Tradition goes back further than Trent.
 
countertenor said:
we did have married priests and married deacons. You admit it yourself above…we just haven’t had them “in centuries.”

The priest also says we didn’t allow priest to marry, which implies that the eastern Churches did, which is also not true. Married men were ordained, not priests getting married, just like happens on occasion today, in the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
That was never the norm. Celibacy was always the norm for priests and deacons in the Latin Church. The Church did tolerated those who were married and became priests, but finally around the eleventh century it made the norm official for all by canon law.

The Church grows organically. There was organic development of doctrine, so the novelty of a married permanent deacon is the error of antiquarianism already condemned by Pope Pius XII.
That is why Pope John Paul II made a huge mistake when he allowed certain former Protestant ministers to become priests.
 
saint_rafael said:
That is true but we never had married deacons. That is what Father was talking about. We had the transitional deacons with the different kinds like the subdeacon. These men were deacons who were on their way to the priesthood.

The permanent married deacon is a novelty not part of traditional Catholicism in centuries.

They are ordained, but the priest calls them lay people because it is such a novelty to have a married man with family, who would otherwise be a lay man, raised to the deaconate.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that doesn’t quite work. Were there not married men raised to the Papacy? Were they just “laymen”? Peter comes to mind…
 
saint_rafael said:
That was never the norm. Celibacy was always the norm for priests and deacons in the Latin Church. The Church did tolerated those who were married and became priests, but finally around the eleventh century it made the norm official for all by canon law.

The Church grows organically. There was organic development of doctrine, so the novelty of a married permanent deacon is the error of antiquarianism already condemned by Pope Pius XII.
That is why Pope John Paul II made a huge mistake when he allowed certain former Protestant ministers to become priests.
Click to expand...
Celibacy was the norm for monastics (obviously) within the Latin Church. As far as cannon law goes, cannon law can and does change. Yes there was an organic development of doctrine, however celibacy is not doctrine it is discipline, which can be changed. I’m not saying it necessarily should be changed. I’m just saying that the priest’s homily was a bit misleading. Everyone knows the Latin Church had both Celibate and Married Priests, and to claim otherwise is to be untruthful.

One can’t defend Tradition, by making statements that are incorrect. Also, Tradition must include those things that occurred prior to the 11th century, just as it was not the Law of the Latin Church prior to this, it can be changed, because it is only a discipline. It is a good discipline and has served us well, but there are married priests out there that are very wonderful priests.

Again, I’m not saying married priests should be the norm, but people should quit politicizing the issue. One can be a traditional Catholic and still think it’s okay to have some married priests, and someone can be a very liberal Catholic and think priest should be celibate.

It is not necessarily antiquarianism to point out that something was done in the past, and think it might be okay today. Likewise, just because the Church allowed something before doesn’t mean it needs to be allowed today.

Again, I’m just saying that this priest, and well quite honestly many of us Latin Catholics need to be truthful, when we discuss Church history, and not leave out things just because they don’t fit our agenda. I don’t mean to say the priest had an agenda when he mentioned that, but he was still incorrect in his statement, and because of priests and other people making statements like that, Latin Catholics continue to look ignorant of certain areas of Church history. When these things are repeatedly taught, and yet they are known (albeit not by all) to be incorrect they begin to sink in and people begin to believe things that just aren’t true.

It also causes friction between Latin, Byzantine and Oriental Catholics. Because well meaning Latins, inadvertently (some times on purpose) act or offend the Catholicity of Byzantine and Oriental Catholics.
 
saint_rafael said:
**
They are ordained, but the priest calls them lay people because it is such a novelty to have a married man with family, who would otherwise be a lay man, raised to the deaconate**.
Click to expand...
A priest calling an ordained Catholic man, a layman is just rude or arrogant or ignorant. I’ll let you choose. Even if you want to argue it as a novelty, The man is still ordained…and would the priest call a married deacon in one of the Byzantine or Oriental Catholic Churches a Layman? Because it is not novelty for those Churches. Or are Byzantine/Oriental married Deacons better in someway than Latin married Deacons? And yes they do have married deacons who do not move on to the priesthood in the Eastern Churches.
 
consumedconvert said:
Hmm, that doesn’t quite work. Were there not married men raised to the Papacy? Were they just “laymen”? Peter comes to mind…
Click to expand...
Everyone makes the same mistake when it comes to Peter. Peter was married, but he was a widow by the time he became a follower and apostle of Jesus.
 
Off topic, but Saint Rafael, I love you your Church Militant flag:)
 
countertenor said:
One can be a traditional Catholic and still think it’s okay to have some married priests, and someone can be a very liberal Catholic and think priest should be celibate.
Click to expand...
No, one cannot be a traditional Catholic and believe it is okay to have married priests.

By definition, a traditional Catholic believes that the discipline of celibacy in the Church from the beginning is true, correct, and should continue as the tradition. Traditonal Catholics are for tradition.

As G.K. Chersterton said, that in regards to the matters of family and sex, the Church has red and white. Red for the sacrament of Marriage and white for the consecrated virginity of priests and lay men. There is no pink. You can’t have pink, the Church hates pink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top