The SSPX and protestants

[JReducation]

In a nutshell, according to Binx and Gerard P. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors are the successors of Peter, but everything that comes out of their mouths and everything they do is garbage.

Therefore, the succession has no meaning.

It is convenient to claim that you believe in the succession, so as to avoid being called heretics. This way you can hold to your claim that you are Catholic, while you publically insult Peter.

I don’t know where you stand on the issue of holiness, but the tradition of the Church has been that the great saints were also the most humble men and women in Christian history. I can’t imagine St. Francis, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius, Bl. Mother Teresa or Bl. John XXIII speaking about the Pope in this manner, even if there were a difference of opinion on certain issues, which in fact there often were.

In fact, these holy men and women often had to submit to the will of Peter to remain in communion with the Church, even when they had mystical experiences where Christ directed them to do something different.

If you study the life of these saints, Christ often appeared to them and spoke to them. He told them where he wanted them to go. When they presented they case before the Pope they were denited, even when there was little doubt that their experience was genuine.

Instead of referring to the Pope and everything he said as garbage, they obeyed because Christ obeyed unto death. Eventually, the Holy Spirit would move the Church and they were freed to proceed according to Christ’s commands.

But they never proceeded on their own premise of being right and the Church wrong. They refused to proceed, even when they believed that the hierarchy was mistaken, because they had promised obedience to God and to the Church and they were not willing to place themselves outside of that promise or to violate this sacred bond with Christ’s Church and most of all with Peter, no matter how wrong he was. Think about Honorius and Francis of Assisi. Who was the holier one of the two?

Yet Francis submitted to Honorius, even when Honorius was wrong. Francis knew that he was wrong. But he also knew that he was Peter’s successor and that he must be obeyed, because despite Honorius sinfullness, he had the keys and the power to bind and unbind.

Eventually, Honorius came around and approved Francis’ reform and sealed it with a bull that no one could change except another pope.

This is true fidelity to Christ and a true demonstration of one’s desire to do God’s will, to submit to him who holds the keys and who has the power to bind and unbind.

Instead, what you are doing is simply invoking belief in the papacy, but trashing it’s every move, decision, statement and wish. That’s very convenient, but very inconsistent with the tradition of the saints.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

In a nutshell, according to Binx and Gerard P. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors are the successors of Peter, but everything that comes out of their mouths and everything they do is garbage.

Therefore, the succession has no meaning.

It is convenient to claim that you believe in the succession, so as to avoid being called heretics. This way you can hold to your claim that you are Catholic, while you publically insult Peter.

BINGO

 

[ReConverted]

So, it is now a requirement of the Church that the homilist MUST refer to Heaven or Hell to be “Catholic enough for you”?

Would that it were!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

My beef is that other Catholics aren’t fortunate enough to be in one of the few Orthodox Catholic dioceses in the United States, like I am.

I am fortunate to be in a parish with a very orthodox priest, who does mention hell in sermons. The parish is vibrant and has a Life Teen program that is awesome. Our Archbishop is no nonsense and orthodox.

To be honest, I think it’s common sense that a society in an irregular situation is better than a parish in which basic Catholic moral teachings, eschatology, liturgy, etc. are routinely flouted in order to appease the anti-Catholic secular culture.

I could not bring myself to go to a group that is in schism with the Church

Frankly, you guys have no idea how lost the youth are. If there is a hell, and people who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, or who knowingly reject the Catholic faith go there, then don’t you think it out to be pointed out at least once? I’m not saying go around being overly-scrupulous, or with a sour expression all the time. All I’m saying, is that over the course of a five year period, shouldn’t it be mentioned once?

I answered this above. Good teen programs are very important, and I stress good.

Ironically the average SSPX sermon online includes more of Pope John Paul II’s teachings than most of the Novus Ordo’s/

Most Novus Ordo parishes don’t put their sermons on line. In fact I don’'t know of any that do. That does not mean they do not preach or give homilies as they should.

The fact is, when I am in another city, and go to a random parish, I’m just as likely to see all the errors preached against by John Paul II and Benedict XVI as I am to hear any semblance of Orthodox preaching. That said, the endless SSPX sermons about Vatican II are not what I want to hear about, either. Just faithfulness to the Gospel, and Catholic faith and morals, please. I want to hear about salvation, miracles, given some encouragement to continue following the path, teaching for my child, etc.

As a father of 5 and grandfather of 13, I could not agree with you more.

I don’t want to hear the democratic party’s platform dressed up as the Gospel. It’s not that I disagree with everything the democratic party argues for, either. I’m just not going to expose my child to banal prayers about heterosexism and climate change. I just want to come into contact with religion when I got to Mass. Is that so much to ask for?

You really hit a button with me here. I could not agree with you more. To go a step further, I don’t know of very many things I do agree with the democrats on. Certainly not their stances on the five non-negotiables, which they are all in favor of.

With all that said, if I was out of town, and there was no traditional parish in range, or an Eastern or conservative N.O. parish, I would look for an SSPX Chapel, especially in some regions of the U.S. I wouldn’t have a choice.

I do not know of any region in the U.S. where there is only SSPX available. Where are you referring to?

I seem to have deleted a paragraph where you (I think it was you) referred to bishops who favor gay rights and gay agendas. The only thing I could say here is that I agree they are not to be discriminated against and are to be prayed for. I know of no bishop who is in favor of gay marriage. or that they should be treated as a minority. Am I missing something ?

It seems we are more in agreement than it first appeared.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What about bishops who promote a gay rights or pro-choice agenda, explicitly or implicitly? There are plenty of them. Should people be taught Catholicism by these men?

I must be living with blinders on. Because I do not know of any Catholic bishop in union with Rome that is in favor of the gay agenda. As far as rights, they should not be discriminated against. They should be prayed for. They are not a minority. There should be no gay marriages, no gay pride days.I don’t know of any bishop in favor of these.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have a question Deacon Ed B, what am I supposed to do when my Bishop encourages disobedience to the Church? He is in union with Rome and I have an independant Chapel 5 minutes away from my house which is more faithful to the Church’s teachings it just is “too Catholic” to be even visited by my Bishop.

Please explain this situation a little more thoroughly. I have found that SSPX calls themselves Catholic in union with Rome, when in fact, they are not. Is this an SSPX or is it in full union with Rome and follows the true magisterium. What do you mean by “independent chapel”?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You really seem to have no clue about Catholicism. And that is a shame if you are a Deacon.

You make assertions that you simply can’t prove.

You are relying on slogans with no understanding of what level of truth is behind them.

You can’t even seem to get the facts straight.

1. “Where Peter is, There is the Church” is not a dogma nor a doctrine. It is the equivalent of a pep talk from St. Ambrose that has been hijacked and twisted into a new form of Ultramontanism.
2. You wrongly assume that excommunications are infallible declarations by Popes. You’re wrong.
3. You seem to have what is referred to as “the Convert’s zeal” which wrongly believes that all answers lie in the mysterious and conveniently vague idea of “Rome.”
4. The SSPX was not founded by an excommunicated bishop. It was found 18 years before 1988. The bishop was invalidly and unjustly tarnished with the calumny that he’d excommunicated himself. All because he didn’t want to trash the Church that Paul VI and John Paul II were perfectly willing to be destroyed.

That’s like watching your Father beat your Mother, trying to stop him and then being accused of the assault by your Father for not taking a few swings at her when he tells you to.

Anyone claiming that the problem is not in Rome is simply the equivalent of being an enabler of an abusive drunk.

I will keep you in prayer. Please pray for me also.
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I read what SSPXers say about being in union with Rome and then they turn around and call the Pope and what the Church is doing things that would never even come out of my mouth. If that makes me a blind follower. I am proud to take that title.

Presently I am reading the diary of St. Faustina. A mystic who will end up being one of the greatest saints in the Church. In those conversations documented in her diary that she had with Jesus, she recounts that Jesus himself told her where her superiors tell her to do anything, even if it is against what he directed her to do. she is to follow her superiors. In other words, to use the words of St. Padre Pio, “Obedience, in all things obedience”. That certainly is not a virtue that I see reflected by those who claim to follow Rome and LeFebvre at the same time. In fact it was disobedience which got him excommunicated. A real good example for his followers that I see they learned to follow extremely well. You will all remain in my prayers. please keep me in yours
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[onaquest]

I found the SSPX more dangerous than the Protestants. I was lured into web of deception for a very short time. Using all that I loved the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass , the rosary, in depth catechesis, they twisted all that was true in my life, while undermining all I had learned. They implied the the Eucharist may not be valid. Shrugging their shoulders when I asked and saying ominously “We don’t know” But guaranteeing me that their mass was valid. I would rather come up against a protestant anyday they don’t have the tools to manipulate my heart and mind .

 

[GerardP]

In a nutshell, according to Binx and Gerard P. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors are the successors of Peter, but everything that comes out of their mouths and everything they do is garbage.

Therefore, the succession has no meaning.

Succession has nothing to do with policy. Your conclusion is completely random and false.

It is convenient to claim that you believe in the succession, so as to avoid being called heretics. This way you can hold to your claim that you are Catholic, while you publically insult Peter.

Peter is not always “SAINT” Peter. And even St. Peter had to bear a rebuke by St. Paul.

I don’t know where you stand on the issue of holiness, but the tradition of the Church has been that the great saints were also the most humble men and women in Christian history.

Humble does not mean servile and meek does not mean weak.

I can’t imagine St. Francis, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius,

I can if they were confronted by today’s issues.

Bl. Mother Teresa or Bl. John XXIII speaking about the Pope in this manner, even if there were a difference of opinion on certain issues, which in fact there often were.

Mother Teresa and John XXIII had their own problems with Orthodoxy.

In fact, these holy men and women often had to submit to the will of Peter to remain in communion with the Church, even when they had mystical experiences where Christ directed them to do something different.

That’s because they were matters of prudence on private revelations. Not public orders that were destroying what had been taught publicly for the entire life of the Church.

If you study the life of these saints, Christ often appeared to them and spoke to them. He told them where he wanted them to go. When they presented they case before the Pope they were denited, even when there was little doubt that their experience was genuine.

That’s standard procedure for the Church to test a private revelation. We are talking about the suppression of public revelation.

Instead of referring to the Pope and everything he said as garbage, they obeyed because Christ obeyed unto death.

Those Popes weren’t commanding what the post-conciliar Popes were commanding.

Eventually, the Holy Spirit would move the Church and they were freed to proceed according to Christ’s commands.

Oh really? You know this for a fact? How do you know it was the Holy Ghost and not Our Lady or St. Michael or St. Joseph?

But they never proceeded on their own premise of being right and the Church wrong.

The Pope is not “The Church.”

They refused to proceed, even when they believed that the hierarchy was mistaken, because they had promised obedience to God and to the Church and they were not willing to place themselves outside of that promise or to violate this sacred bond with Christ’s Church and most of all with Peter, no matter how wrong he was.

“Peter” did not issue the immoral commands to those saints that
affected the public proclamation of the Gospel. The Church can handle delays of private revelation. It is not licit to suppress the fullness of the Catholic Faith and allow errors to fester.

Think about Honorius and Francis of Assisi. Who was the holier one of the two? Yet Francis submitted to Honorius, even when Honorius was wrong. Francis knew that he was wrong. But he also knew that he was Peter’s successor and that he must be obeyed, because despite Honorius sinfullness, he had the keys and the power to bind and unbind.

Eventually, Honorius came around and approved Francis’ reform and sealed it with a bull that no one could change except another pope.

St. Francis wanted to try something new. Archbishop LeFebvre wanted to continue doing what was old, true and proven.

This is true fidelity to Christ and a true demonstration of one’s desire to do God’s will, to submit to him who holds the keys and who has the power to bind and unbind.

God’s desire is not to submit to him who holds the keys when he who holds those keys is not defending the faith and orders others to do the same.

1. All Popes are not the same
2. All papal commands do not have the same authority
3. Saints sometimes obey and sometimes resist.

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face…because he was to be blamed.”

1. Sometimes saints have a wrong-headed idea of what obedience is. St. Gerard caused more problems for St. Alphonsus Ligouri with his obedience to an abusive superior than he did when Alphonsus told him he should’ve disobeyed the immoral commands of a superior that was left in charge when Alphonsus went on a journey.
2. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is the Church nor that the Pope is irresistible in all matters.

Instead, what you are doing is simply invoking belief in the papacy, but trashing it’s every move, decision, statement and wish. That’s very convenient, but very inconsistent with the tradition of the saints.

No. I’m not trashing papacy. I’m calling the policies of the last few Popes garbage because of their bad fruit, their lack of logic, their lack of consistency with the traditional doctrine of the Church and the fact that the papacy and the Councils of the Church have already called a number of those policies, “Rash, Injurious to pious ears…poison in the Church.”

The “papacy” is not making these policies. Specific Popes are.
They can’t sit on the chair and hide behind it at the same time. When they are faltering in their performance God will let it to a certain point and then he will raise a saintly man like LeFebvre or St. Paul before him to chastise him. Just like Nathan the prophet chastised King David before him.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

God will let it to a certain point and then he will raise a saintly man like LeFebvre or St. Paul before him to chastise him. Just like Nathan the prophet chastised King David before him.

Now I see why so many SSPXers are so misguided. To equate LeFebvre with St Paul is beyond the pale. Next thing we know, there will be a basilica in his honor in Rome. Wow. You continue to be in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Would that it were!

Interesting, how so many here choose to focus on what they think they “don’t get from the Church”, that they should.

Ya think God doesn’t wonder the same thing about his people on earth?

 

[ethelzguy]

I found the SSPX more dangerous than the Protestants. I was lured into web of deception for a very short time. Using all that I loved the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass , the rosary, in depth catechesis, they twisted all that was true in my life, while undermining all I had learned. They implied the the Eucharist may not be valid. Shrugging their shoulders when I asked and saying ominously “We don’t know” But guaranteeing me that their mass was valid. I would rather come up against a protestant anyday they don’t have the tools to manipulate my heart and mind .

Very true. Most protestants base their protestantism in openly rejecting tenets of the Catholic Faith.

The SSPX and similar groups, either in schism or irregular standing, play the opposite game, claiming to be “super-Catholics” as a means of undermining the faith of Cathoics in Full Communion with Rome.

 

[GerardP]

Very true. Most protestants base their protestantism in openly rejecting tenets of the Catholic Faith.

The SSPX and similar groups, either in schism or irregular standing, play the opposite game, claiming to be “super-Catholics” as a means of undermining the faith of Cathoics in Full Communion with Rome.

You’ve got it so wrong. It’s the conservatives who pretend to be 'super-Catholics" as means of underming the faith.

The Protestants err by defect, the conservative err by excess.

The anti-traditionalists have only ridicule to rely upon. They can’t claim any behavior by traditionalists is sinful, incorrect or without precedent in the history of the Church.

But in order to defend their “Pope as Pharoah” position, they talk go on and on about their offended sensibilities and all of these emotionally based arguments.

Funny how they switch gears from being ultra legalistic when attacking the SSPX to ultra-righteous when defending the Popes’ inactions and connivance in allowing the abominations to decimate the Church for the last 4 decades.

 

[GerardP]

Now I see why so many SSPXers are so misguided. To equate LeFebvre with St Paul is beyond the pale. Next thing we know, there will be a basilica in his honor in Rome. Wow. You continue to be in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Exactly how is it beyond the pale? Was St. Paul not a bishop? Did he not see the Pope acting in a way that undermined the Gospel? Did he not try to correct the error?

I’ll tell you this, if LeFebvre had acted the way St. Paul more than likely skewered St. Peter, the conservatives would probably have gone for his head.

The big problem is the lack of humility of the post-conciliar Popes who do not acknowledge the disaster and their responsibility for it.

 

[GerardP]

I found the SSPX more dangerous than the Protestants. I was lured into web of deception for a very short time. Using all that I loved the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass , the rosary, in depth catechesis, they twisted all that was true in my life, while undermining all I had learned. They implied the the Eucharist may not be valid. Shrugging their shoulders when I asked and saying ominously “We don’t know” But guaranteeing me that their mass was valid. I would rather come up against a protestant anyday they don’t have the tools to manipulate my heart and mind .

Name the priests.

 

[GerardP]

I read what SSPXers say about being in union with Rome and then they turn around and call the Pope and what the Church is doing things that would never even come out of my mouth. If that makes me a blind follower. I am proud to take that title.

Why would you be proud to be in error? What makes you think that liberals who believe in something wrong don’t take pride in their error?

It is the teaching of the Church that is the rule. That is all.

Presently I am reading the diary of St. Faustina. A mystic who will end up being one of the greatest saints in the Church. In those conversations documented in her diary that she had with Jesus, she recounts that Jesus himself told her where her superiors tell her to do anything, even if it is against what he directed her to do. she is to follow her superiors.

That MUST be a modernist fraud or Faustina was visited by a Demon. That is perverse. Our Lord would never ever say anything like that.

And St. Thomas, THE Doctor and Theologian of the Church quoting the infallible Word of God backs me up.

“On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): **“We ought to obey God rather than men.” **Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”

God is not a liar. Therefore the diary is a lie. Don’t rely on private revelations that tickle your ears. Especially when they contradict the approved teachings and the public revelations of the Church.

In other words, to use the words of St. Padre Pio, “Obedience, in all things obedience”. That certainly is not a virtue that I see reflected by those who claim to follow Rome and LeFebvre at the same time. In fact it was disobedience which got him excommunicated. A real good example for his followers that I see they learned to follow extremely well. You will all remain in my prayers. please keep me in yours
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Padre Pio asked for and received the blessing of Archbishop LeFebvre in 1967. And if he said that, he was wrong.

Also, It was not disobedience which brought the false charge of excommunication, it was the consecration of the bishops.

 

[Timothysis]

The big problem is the lack of humility it…

Spoken like a true “traditionalist”…

 

[ethelzguy]

“On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): **“We ought to obey God rather than men.” **Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”

The same statement could just as easily be applied to your beloved Lefebvre…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Also, It was not disobedience which brought the false charge of excommunication, it was the consecration of the bishops.

**
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
**
That was the act of disobedience. mercy. You amaze me.
Sincere prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B