S
Sean_O_L
Guest
It’s sorta like saying:
- which is true, but is bad logic.
- Status
D
Dropper
Guest
Sean O L:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
From the pictures here…
Wow, in a Catholic basilica… Maybe it’s because they are Catholic. Oops there goes my bad logic again.
Okay… Here’s a picture of the “schismatic” SSPX celebrating a Mass in the basilica at Lourdes.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
From the pictures here…
Wow, in a Catholic basilica… Maybe it’s because they are Catholic. Oops there goes my bad logic again.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, a bishop let the schismtic and heretical Lutherans use a cathedral in Florida, I suppose we cannot fault the charity of a French bishop to the schismatic and possibly heretical SSPX.
I
Iohannes
Guest
Will you stop it with the heretical thing about the SSPX, unless you can find some SSPX heresy, I suggest you stop it, it is against Charity.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
When I attended Mass at the local chapel (Our Lady of Victory, Las Vegas, Nevada), the priest said that the “Novus Ordo” Mass was an “abomination.” Not the abuse of the Mass of Paul VI, the Mass itself. To claim that the normative Mass of the Church is an “abomination” is indeed a heresy. If it’s an abomination, then the Sacrifice cannot be confected thereby and the Church has allowed about two generations of Catholics to be lead into error. You cannot have it both ways. It’s either an adequate propitiatory sacrifice or it’s an “abomination,” it cannot be both. He spoke heresy. Strike one. When the SSPX crashed the Shrine at Fatima (and I chose the word deliberately…they weren’t invited as a society), one SSPX priest was quoted by one of the radical traditionalists sites as saying that the post-conciliar Church was a “devil-inspired religion.” Strike two. I’m afraid I cannot provide you with the name of the site, but since the link was provided in these forums, I bet you could find it if you searched. I was present for the Mass at Our Lady of Victory. I know what was said. I think I’m erring on the side of charity by saying “possibly” heretical. I don’t think I’m violating charity, I think I’m telling the truth (with the caveat of “possible,” I know I am).
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Ah, Iohannes, I found it!
cfnews.org/disrupt.htm
It was an Austrailian priest, a Fr. Kevin Robinson.
cfnews.org/disrupt.htm
It was an Austrailian priest, a Fr. Kevin Robinson.
I
Iohannes
Guest
one sspx priest opinion on that does not make him a representive of the whole sspx. I know of one sspx supporter complaining that his priest was a closet sedevacantist. This does not mean that the priest of the entire sspx are closet sedevacantist. I do think he errors when talks about the Novus Ordo Missae being an “abomination.” He is not a heretic until he has two formal heresies. You cannot call someone a heretic unless they have two formal heresies and they are proclaimed as such.
As for the “devil-inspired religion”, he is talking about modernism. I believe that is the proper context, if not, he is in trouble. I will give him the benefit of doubt he means modernism as a new religion.
This is not baseball btw.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
From a file:
Marie Ryan (July 1998 AD2000) correctly observes that “CATHOLIC” is not a publication of the Society of St Pius X "; but she incorrectly wrote of Matthew Lisle (April AD2000) that: "Mr Lisle advised the SSPX to take note, as it were, that ‘the Fraternity of St Peter was arriving in Australia and New Zealand’ "; for it was Fr Violette who made that announcement in his own (Jan.-Feb. 1998) Bulletin. Mr Lisle’s intention, I believe, was to demonstrate Fr. Violette’s anti-Catholic verbiage, which included the assertion that such "evil " (e.g. the new Mass, Vatican II novelties, new Catechism, etc.) …’would have happened to the SSPX had the protocol of 1988 been accepted.’ "
Lefebvre Agreed To "One Mass"
The Protocol, however, was accepted! “The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th…” (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol “to allow one New Mass to be celebrated…”- a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as “intrinsically evil”.
That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, and the 1965 event be shown not to be an isolated event, is history. Fr. Harrison wrote (THE LATIN MASS of Spring 1997): “Those who remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope.”
jloughnan.tripod.com/execrab.htm
See also “The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!”
jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm
Trent anathematises anyone who would if he considers the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite - the liturgy of Pope Paul VI not to be a true and proper Sacrifice, or not to be a propitiary Sacrifice, or that the Canon contains errors, or the ceremonies are incentives to impiety, (Sess. XXII, Chapter IX On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons I, III, V and VII.) What then of the SSPX declaring the Pauline Liturgy to be “intrinsically evil” – that’s right: “intrinsically evil”!?
And, this is what the 1888 Catholic Encyclopedia has on the matter:
“Christians have a twofold duty. They are obliged to believe, first, that the doctrine so defined is true, and next that it is part of the Christian revelation received by the Apostles. Again, no Christian is at liberty to refuse assent to any dogma which the Church proposes. To do so involves nothing less than shipwreck of the faith, and no Catholic can accept the Protestant distinction between ‘fundamental and non-fundamental articles of faith.’ It is a matter of fundamental importance to accept the whole of the Church’s teaching. True, a Catholic is not bound to know all the definitions of the Church – but, if he knowingly and wilfully contradicts or doubts the truth of any one among them, he ceases to be a Catholic.” (DOGMA - “A Catholic Dictionary,” by William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold. M.A., Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1 Paternoster Square, 1885).
Marie Ryan (July 1998 AD2000) correctly observes that “CATHOLIC” is not a publication of the Society of St Pius X "; but she incorrectly wrote of Matthew Lisle (April AD2000) that: "Mr Lisle advised the SSPX to take note, as it were, that ‘the Fraternity of St Peter was arriving in Australia and New Zealand’ "; for it was Fr Violette who made that announcement in his own (Jan.-Feb. 1998) Bulletin. Mr Lisle’s intention, I believe, was to demonstrate Fr. Violette’s anti-Catholic verbiage, which included the assertion that such "evil " (e.g. the new Mass, Vatican II novelties, new Catechism, etc.) …’would have happened to the SSPX had the protocol of 1988 been accepted.’ "
Lefebvre Agreed To "One Mass"
The Protocol, however, was accepted! “The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th…” (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol “to allow one New Mass to be celebrated…”- a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as “intrinsically evil”.
That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, and the 1965 event be shown not to be an isolated event, is history. Fr. Harrison wrote (THE LATIN MASS of Spring 1997): “Those who remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope.”
jloughnan.tripod.com/execrab.htm
See also “The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!”
jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm
Trent anathematises anyone who would if he considers the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite - the liturgy of Pope Paul VI not to be a true and proper Sacrifice, or not to be a propitiary Sacrifice, or that the Canon contains errors, or the ceremonies are incentives to impiety, (Sess. XXII, Chapter IX On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons I, III, V and VII.) What then of the SSPX declaring the Pauline Liturgy to be “intrinsically evil” – that’s right: “intrinsically evil”!?
And, this is what the 1888 Catholic Encyclopedia has on the matter:
“Christians have a twofold duty. They are obliged to believe, first, that the doctrine so defined is true, and next that it is part of the Christian revelation received by the Apostles. Again, no Christian is at liberty to refuse assent to any dogma which the Church proposes. To do so involves nothing less than shipwreck of the faith, and no Catholic can accept the Protestant distinction between ‘fundamental and non-fundamental articles of faith.’ It is a matter of fundamental importance to accept the whole of the Church’s teaching. True, a Catholic is not bound to know all the definitions of the Church – but, if he knowingly and wilfully contradicts or doubts the truth of any one among them, he ceases to be a Catholic.” (DOGMA - “A Catholic Dictionary,” by William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold. M.A., Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1 Paternoster Square, 1885).
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Please provide a reference regarding “must have 2 formal heresies” to be regarded as a heretic. Does that mean I can hew to “faith alone” as long as I don’t step another toe over the line? I also haven’t proclaimed anyone a heretic. I assume that only the Holy Father can do that. I used the terms “possible heretic” and “possibly heretical”. I haven’t said that the SSPX is heretical, I’ve said they are schismatic and “possibly heretical.” I also think that the priest above thinks the post-conciliar Church is the devil-inspired relgion he speaks of. If he thinks it’s devil-inspiration is the result of modernism (it isn’t, as that’s an error and the Church cannot be lead into error, nor teach it), it’s still heresy to claim that of the Church under the Popes.
And I think Sean has also given you a more than adequate answer.
- Status