SSPX Teaching Video

[catharina]

My apologies. I was not aware.

No problem at all.
Who knows everything? Not I.

 

[piouswoman]

It seems you enjoy getting yourself emotionally worked up so I won’t say: “Put a cork in it.” In regard to YOUR statement that “the Church has excommunicated Tradition” - hey, that was YOUR singular and unusual STATEMENT.

For the sake of all that is holy, do NOT try to make it a statement of Our Blessed Mother.

By stating your egregious and horrific opinion that ‘the Church has excommunicated Tradition,’ YOU are denying Our Lord’s promise to protect His Church. YOUR WORDS are equal to THAT conclusion. Forget about any supposed opinion, yours or mine. Just WATCH what YOU SAY. Some of us are not willing to be subjected to the excesses of your rants, especially when those rants are twisted to mar the holiness of Our Lord and His mother.

Since you are not sitting right next to me, and you are not an acquaintance of mine, your statement about getting all emotionally worked up is hilarious…thanks for the laugh!
Does it work both ways around here? In other words…would you mind watching what you say in return? And would you please be so gracious as to consider that I am not willing to be continually assaulted and subjected to your excessive and out of line posts?..especially when you disregard tradition under the guise of piety and with an intolerant and disrespectful attitude to those who do not blindly follow error. It will do no good to continue with snide and abrasive remarks with the intent of silencing me. You have more than once spoken as though your opinion is finite and absolute. You are simply wrong to do so.

 

[catharina]

Since you are not sitting right next to me, and you are not an acquaintance of mine, your statement about getting all emotionally worked up is hilarious…thanks for the laugh!
Does it work both ways around here? In other words…would you mind watching what you say in return? And would you please be so gracious as to consider that I am not willing to be continually assaulted and subjected to your excessive and out of line posts?..especially when you disregard tradition under the guise of piety and with an intolerant and disrespectful attitude to those who do not blindly follow error. It will do no good to continue with snide and abrasive remarks with the intent of silencing me. You have more than once spoken as though your opinion is finite and absolute. You are simply wrong to do so.

Regarding most things, whatever.

Regarding YOUR statement,
“The Church has excommunicated Tradition,”
I must object and I do object.

 

[piouswoman]

Regarding most things, whatever.

Regarding YOUR statement,
“The Church has excommunicated Tradition,”
I must object and I do object.

Very well. I have never denied anyone their opinion. Your accentuation of my statement is fine, I stand by it.

 

[catharina]

Very well. I have never denied anyone their opinion. Your accentuation of my statement is fine, I stand by it.

You stand by your statement. Whatever.

 

[NicPais83]

Since you are not sitting right next to me, and you are not an acquaintance of mine, your statement about getting all emotionally worked up is hilarious…thanks for the laugh!
Does it work both ways around here? In other words…would you mind watching what you say in return? And would you please be so gracious as to consider that I am not willing to be continually assaulted and subjected to your excessive and out of line posts?..especially when you disregard tradition under the guise of piety and with an intolerant and disrespectful attitude to those who do not blindly follow error. It will do no good to continue with snide and abrasive remarks with the intent of silencing me. You have more than once spoken as though your opinion is finite and absolute. You are simply wrong to do so.

To speak for myself, I have attempted not to be snide or abrasive with you; instead I call simply for an end to name calling and backing up generalized statements with citations and sources. It is to generalized statements without these sources that I am frustrated with. As a person, I have no animosity or hatred or negative feelings towards you.

Likewise, I feel the obligation to ask in what way has tradition been disregarded here? Myself and many others have not claimed an ignorance or disregard for tradition; in fact many of our retorts have been made citing tradition as evidence. Many of us have made the same statement that Church teaching is guided by Scripture and Holy Tradition that was passed to us from the Apostles, and instituted by Christ Himself! I applaud you, and those that I have argued with for their zeal, but if we truly are all members of Holy Mother Church, then we should not be fighting amoungst ourselves over trivial issues. Christ promised to be with His bride always, and gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us, along with the Successor of Peter to tend His flock. If the Second Vatican Council is in error, then the Holy Spirit is not with the Church. If the Vicar of Christ is in error, then Jesus was lying when He asked Peter three times if he loved Him and to tend His flock. If Jesus is not with His bride anymore, then it appears that Christ has divorced us, which contradicts His own teachings. If the Church is in error or destroyed, or any of that, then all of Christ’s teachings, His resurrection, His ministry, His Gospel, the Eucharist, all of it is called into question. So, is Christ the Son of God? Is the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God? Is the Mass the unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Altar, with the Priest acting in Persona Christi?

 

[catharina]

To speak for myself, I have attempted not to be snide or abrasive with you; instead I call simply for an end to name calling and backing up generalized statements with citations and sources. It is to generalized statements without these sources that I am frustrated with. As a person, I have no animosity or hatred or negative feelings towards you.

Likewise, I feel the obligation to ask in what way has tradition been disregarded here? Myself and many others have not claimed an ignorance or disregard for tradition; in fact many of our retorts have been made citing tradition as evidence. Many of us have made the same statement that Church teaching is guided by Scripture and Holy Tradition that was passed to us from the Apostles, and instituted by Christ Himself! I applaud you, and those that I have argued with for their zeal, but if we truly are all members of Holy Mother Church, then we should not be fighting amoungst ourselves over trivial issues. Christ promised to be with His bride always, and gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us, along with the Successor of Peter to tend His flock. If the Second Vatican Council is in error, then the Holy Spirit is not with the Church. If the Vicar of Christ is in error, then Jesus was lying when He asked Peter three times if he loved Him and to tend His flock. If Jesus is not with His bride anymore, then it appears that Christ has divorced us, which contradicts His own teachings. If the Church is in error or destroyed, or any of that, then all of Christ’s teachings, His resurrection, His ministry, His Gospel, the Eucharist, all of it is called into question.

You’ve re-stated each of my points and more besides.
Thank you so much. God bless you in the joy of your youth!

 

[NicPais83]

You’ve re-stated each of my points and more besides.
Thank you so much. God bless you in the joy of your youth!

There are so many other people here that deserve more thanks. But God bless you and thank you for your kindness!

 

[piouswoman]

To speak for myself, I have attempted not to be snide or abrasive with you; instead I call simply for an end to name calling and backing up generalized statements with citations and sources. It is to generalized statements without these sources that I am frustrated with. As a person, I have no animosity or hatred or negative feelings towards you.

Likewise, I feel the obligation to ask in what way has tradition been disregarded here? Myself and many others have not claimed an ignorance or disregard for tradition; in fact many of our retorts have been made citing tradition as evidence. Many of us have made the same statement that Church teaching is guided by Scripture and Holy Tradition that was passed to us from the Apostles, and instituted by Christ Himself! I applaud you, and those that I have argued with for their zeal, but if we truly are all members of Holy Mother Church, then we should not be fighting amoungst ourselves over trivial issues. Christ promised to be with His bride always, and gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us, along with the Successor of Peter to tend His flock. If the Second Vatican Council is in error, then the Holy Spirit is not with the Church. If the Vicar of Christ is in error, then Jesus was lying when He asked Peter three times if he loved Him and to tend His flock. If Jesus is not with His bride anymore, then it appears that Christ has divorced us, which contradicts His own teachings. If the Church is in error or destroyed, or any of that, then all of Christ’s teachings, His resurrection, His ministry, His Gospel, the Eucharist, all of it is called into question. So, is Christ the Son of God? Is the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God? Is the Mass the unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Altar, with the Priest acting in Persona Christi?

I would argue that what you said above, which I have bolded, is inaccurate. If the Second Vatican Council is in error, then the Holy Spirit was not with the Council. I don’t believe that it was. If the Holy Spirit had been, it would of borne good fruits. It has not.

 

[NicPais83]

I would argue that what you said above, which I have bolded, is inaccurate. If the Second Vatican Council is in error, then the Holy Spirit was not with the Council. I don’t believe that it was. If the Holy Spirit had been, it would of borne good fruits. It has not.

Once again, the burden of proof is on you. The fact of the matter is that an Ecumenical Council, in union with the Pope, cannot be in error. If you do not believe this, then you are denying a major Catholic belief, and it calls into question every other Council. What’s to stop someone from saying that Mary is not the Mother of God? What’s to stop someone from saying that the Nicene Creed is heresy? What’s to stop someone from saying that Gentiles are not entitled to the Sacraments?

Yes, there has been much turmoil since the Council. Historically speaking, however, this is nothing new. The First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics broke away and the Papal states were taken over by military forces. Trent, Protestantism was not stopped, and swept through parts of Europe and exists to this day. Benedict XVI himself says that each Council is followed by around 100 years of turmoil. But to say that there are no good fruits of the Council, again it is on you to provide the burden of proof. I was born in the 80’s, and I don’t believe that the Church after the Council has led me wrong.

 

[I_Believe]

Just a small catechism lesson… Cardinals and bishops , as members of the magisterium are infallible only when they are in unison with the rest of the magisterium including the pope in their collegial deliberations. His separate opinion does not fit that bill.
Prayers & blessings
Deacocn Ed B

So, what is your point ?

I said nothing whatsoever about “infallible”, and I don’t believe you can find a single post of mine on CA where I even used the words infallible, ex catherda, or infallibility.

So, again, what is your point. Did it anger you because I quoted someone who was at the Council, and who did not embrace Revolutionary Change ? Is this quote something you just don’t want to hear ?

Here, poo pooh these quotes …

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states:** "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change '**(November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of** “the great masters of the international liturgical world”** (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes:** “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” **(pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes:** “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” **(The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: **“We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” **(February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

How about this from the man who called VII ?

**Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.**
   adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

Tell us Deacon, what are Your thoughts on Revolutionary Changes ?

 

[I_Believe]

oh, I forgot to add this from the VS…

Finally, in virtue of Our apostolic authority, We **will and command **that all the decisions, decrees, proclamations and recommendations of this Our Constitution remain firmly established and ratified, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however worthy of special note.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the feast of Saint Peter’s Throne on the 22nd day of February in the year 1962, the fourth of Our pontificate.

Will, Command, Decree ? Do these words mean anything ?

Authority ? The nerve of him. What is he, a Pope or something ?

What would he know about Revolutionary Changes that an armchair theologian wouldn’t know ? Sheesh.

 

[piouswoman]

Once again, the burden of proof is on you. The fact of the matter is that an Ecumenical Council, in union with the Pope, cannot be in error. If you do not believe this, then you are denying a major Catholic belief, and it calls into question every other Council. What’s to stop someone from saying that Mary is not the Mother of God? What’s to stop someone from saying that the Nicene Creed is heresy? What’s to stop someone from saying that Gentiles are not entitled to the Sacraments?

Yes, there has been much turmoil since the Council. Historically speaking, however, t****his is nothing new. The First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics broke away and the Papal states were taken over by military forces. Trent, Protestantism was not stopped, and swept through parts of Europe and exists to this day. Benedict XVI himself says that each Council is followed by around 100 years of turmoil. But to say that there are no good fruits of the Council, again it is on you to provide the burden of proof. I was born in the 80’s, and I don’t believe that the Church after the Council has led me wrong.

No, the burden of proof is on YOU…prove to me that an ecumenical council in union with the pope cannot be in error…what “major Catholic belief” am I denying? Vatican II was a Pastoral Council…it was not DOGMATIC. Nothing was defined, and you know why? Because they coundn’t define THEIR ERRORS without denying those already DEFINED DOGMAS.

 

[NicPais83]

No, the burden of proof is on YOU…prove to me that an ecumenical council in union with the pope cannot be in error…what “major Catholic belief” am I denying? Vatican II was a Pastoral Council…it was not DOGMATIC. Nothing was defined, and you know why? Because they coundn’t define THEIR ERRORS without denying those already DEFINED DOGMAS.

As to the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council: newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

And, to quote specifically: “All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us).”

This was printed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, long before the Second Vatican Council. Another major belief is that a dogma is a required belief. Now, I’ll admit that I can’t name every single dogma off the top of my head, but what comes to mind are the belief in the Real Presence, the Virginity of Mary, and other basic Church teachings. I would rather not go around in circles like this, but which dogmas were in conflict with which “errors” of the Second Vatican Council? I ask that you list the errors that you are referring to and explain why they conflict with Church dogma.

I agree, the Second Vatican Council was not a Council that defined dogmas or beliefs, and if that is the case, then you just now contradicted a post you made earlier today in which you stated that the Council re-defined the faith to adapt to the modern world. So, if nothing was defined, how was the faith changed?

I quoted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia for you to read in order that there be no argument as to where I get this notion of the infallibility of the Council, in union with the Pope.

 

[Sarpedon]

The English martyrs chose to suffer the ultimate sacrifice rather than break off unity with the Roman Pontiff, what they knew was an indispensable part of the faith.

Amen!

(Still waiting for the SSPX response on this one- for I’ve already brought this up on this same thread with no refutation)

 

[Sarpedon]

The time for tradition is over? Wow. Do you know anything at all about the Catholic faith? It is quite obvious, lay Catholics today, have been so poorly catechized, so robbed of the truth by the modernists, that they have indeed lost the faith, and they don’t even know it…as a Catholic, it is your duty to KNOW your faith. To choose to remain ignorant is morally wrong.

I try to educate myself.

, handed down orally from Apostolic times.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, came to earth to reveal Divine truths to men. After His death, His Apostles and disciples wrote about Him and His teachings.
The deposit of faith which Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church is made up of two parts: Holy Scripture, and Divine Tradition, this latter being composed of the truths passed down by word of mouth, and not written down till after the death of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, principally by the Fathers of the Church,
Divine Revelation was completed at the death of the last of the Apostles. Since that time no new revelation has been made for the instruction of the whole of mankind. Whenever the Church decides a point it does so according to Scripture or Tradition. It simply finds out what has been revealed from the beginning.

Divine Tradition must be believed as firmly as the Bible, because in also contains the word of God.
**Divine Tradition teaches us all the doctrines that were taught by the Apostles. It comes to us from the Apostles. Every single doctrine the Church teaches comes direct from the Apostles. The Church does not issue new doctrines.
Furthermore…Protestant denominations ***reject ***Tradition.

There is simply no part of Sacred Tradition that says that the Tridentine Rite is the only acceptable liturgy.

[/QUOTE]

 

[catharina]

Amen!

(Still waiting for the SSPX response on this one- for I’ve already brought this up on this same thread with no refutation)

In a way, the Church is still waiting too, because the members of sspx cannot continue to give their allegiance to excommunicated bishops. Everyone knows the clock is ticking.

As for any devoted sspx hangers-on (non-priests), ditto.

 

[piouswoman]

As to the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council: newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

And, to quote specifically: “All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us).”

This was printed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, long before the Second Vatican Council. Another major belief is that a dogma is a required belief. Now, I’ll admit that I can’t name every single dogma off the top of my head, but what comes to mind are the belief in the Real Presence, the Virginity of Mary, and other basic Church teachings. I would rather not go around in circles like this, but which dogmas were in conflict with which “errors” of the Second Vatican Council? I ask that you list the errors that you are referring to and explain why they conflict with Church dogma.

I agree, the Second Vatican Council was not a Council that defined dogmas or beliefs, and if that is the case, then you just now contradicted a post you made earlier today in which you stated that the Council re-defined the faith to adapt to the modern world. So, if nothing was defined, how was the faith changed?

I quoted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia for you to read in order that there be no argument as to where I get this notion of the infallibility of the Council, in union with the Pope.

Your Catholic Encyclopedia may of been printed long before Vatican II, but the error of modernism started creeping into the Church LONG before Vatican II…it began with the French Revolution in fact. Here is my answer to you…and I suggest you read:

geocities.com/catholic_profide/renew2.html

 

[EddieArent]

Amen!

(Still waiting for the SSPX response on this one- for I’ve already brought this up on this same thread with no refutation)

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.

 

[laudamus_te]

Genesis315:

The English martyrs chose to suffer the ultimate sacrifice rather than break off unity with the Roman Pontiff, what they knew was an indispensable part of the faith.

Amen!

(Still waiting for the SSPX response on this one- for I’ve already brought this up on this same thread with no refutation)

The English martyrs suffered the ultimate sacrifice for the Faith, just as Archbishop Lefebvre suffered for the Faith, albeit not by a physical martyrdom. One does not suffer martyrdom for a pontiff, but for the Faith.