Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

Aloysius

By Aloysius
in Catholic Debate Table

 Share

Recommended Posts

BG45

BG45

Posted
Posted

This all reminds me of Grant at Appomatix Courthouse following the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. As the rebels marched away under the generous surrender terms (amnesty, keeping personal firearms for hunting, keeping horses for plowing, etc.) the Union troops began to celebrate. Grant though silenced them with a sharp rebuke, "The rebels are our countrymen again".

Like DS and MIkolbe among others, I am not a fan of the SSPX. However, I will be happy if this ends in such a way that we can welcome them back to the Church as brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Papist

Papist

Posted
Posted (edited)

This also reminds me of a great quote by GK Chesterton.

[quote]A radical generally meant a man who thought he could some how pull up the root without affecting the flower. A conservative generally meant a man who wanted to conserve everything except his own reason for conserving anything.
[/quote]

Edited by Papist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernard

bernard

Posted
Posted (edited)

I for one hope they reject it. Why they would ever acknowledge the imposter popes is beyond me.

Bp Fellay is in a real bind because I think they have to accept Vatican II in its entirety in order to be accepted again.
Also the priests will have to be "bi-ritual" performing the traditional rite as well as the abomination imposed on the Catholic faithful by the papal imposter Paul Vi in 1969.
This is the rumor anyway.
Obviously most in the society will never accept this, but Fellay has invested so much time and effort in getting accepted as well as muzzelling his fellow bishop (Williamson) he won't be able to turn it down without losing face big time.

Edited by bernard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernard

bernard

Posted
Posted (edited)

heads in the sand...



[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/world/europe/14vatican.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y"]http://www.nytimes.c...tnt&tntemail1=y[/url]

[b] Abuse Victims Ask Court to Prosecute the Vatican[/b]

[b] By [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurie_goodstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]LAURIE GOODSTEIN[/url][/b]

[b] Published: September 13, 2011[/b]
<
"Human rights lawyers and victims of clergy sexual abuse filed a complaint on Tuesday urging the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate and prosecute [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]Pope Benedict XVI[/url] and three top [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Vatican[/url] officials for crimes against humanity for what they described as abetting and covering up the rape and sexual assault of children by priests."

Edited by bernard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maggyie

Maggyie

Posted
Posted

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1316138544' post='2305273']
Why would they have to be bi-ritual, the EF is in the same rite as the OF.
[/quote]

I think Bernard doesn't think it's so.

Barf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
faithcecelia

faithcecelia

Posted
Posted

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316138061' post='2305270']
heads in the sand...



[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/world/europe/14vatican.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y"]http://www.nytimes.c...tnt&tntemail1=y[/url]

[b] Abuse Victims Ask Court to Prosecute the Vatican[/b]

[b] By [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurie_goodstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]LAURIE GOODSTEIN[/url][/b]

[b] Published: September 13, 2011[/b]
<
"Human rights lawyers and victims of clergy sexual abuse filed a complaint on Tuesday urging the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate and prosecute [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]Pope Benedict XVI[/url] and three top [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Vatican[/url] officials for crimes against humanity for what they described as abetting and covering up the rape and sexual assault of children by priests."
[/quote]


So no child was abused by priests before V2? Seriously, as arguments in support of the SSPX go, this simply isn't one worth even beginning with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernard

bernard

Posted
Posted

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1316154250' post='2305335']


So no child was abused by priests before V2? Seriously, as arguments in support of the SSPX go, this simply isn't one worth even beginning with.
[/quote]

What I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of criticizing the SSPX when the the Vatican has been taken over by a bunch of perverts and the pope is been implicted in knowing about perverts in the church and doing nothing about it.

BBC What the Pope knew
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxwgDxxAUY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxwgDxxAUY[/url]


There is no way the mass of Pope Pius V codified in 1570, properly known as the Tridentine Rite is the same as Paul VI's "mass."

The words of consecration have been changed, all the offratory prayers have been removed, there is little or no sacrificial aspect to the new mass.
Plus the priest facing the people, and the shaking hands "peace be with you" thing, no, it's a complete joke.

I don't want to offend you but you really need to wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
faithcecelia

faithcecelia

Posted
Posted

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316165450' post='2305347']

What I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of criticizing the SSPX when the the Vatican has been taken over by a bunch of perverts and the pope is been implicted in knowing about perverts in the church and doing nothing about it.

[/quote]

And what I am pointing out is many, many children were abused by priests well before V2, well before B16 was made Pope, and they were kept hidden by their bishops and superiors. I am not saying the Pope has done right by possibly playing a part in a coverup, of course he shouldnt have - but its been going on for a century or more, it is NOT the result of V" or the NO and I am 99% sure the SSPX are not entirely innoncent either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BG45

BG45

Posted
Posted

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316137206' post='2305255']

Bp Fellay is in a real bind because I think they have to accept Vatican II in its entirety in order to be accepted again.
Also the priests will have to be "bi-ritual" performing the traditional rite as well as the abomination imposed on the Catholic faithful by the [b]papal imposter Paul Vi[/b] in 1969.
[/quote]

I see we're still arguing about this.

Might I assume that if the SSPX were to return to Rome, you would not and merely discount them as having "fallen"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aloysius

Aloysius

Posted
  • Author
Posted

bernard does not represent an SSPX position, as he is a sedevacantist. the SSPX expells priests from its ranks if they adhere to sedevacantism. that is where the SSPV came from, a group of priests that were expelled from the SSPX for being sedevacantists. even +Williamson is not a sedevacantist.

not that this thread should go off topic on bernard's whim, but any point to be made would be this: that in the post-conciliar period, there was less of a tendency to apply the punishments of the Code of Canon Law strictly, there was more openness towards the psychological profession which suggested there was the possibility of reforming these people, which is what led to them being moved around more. thankfully we have moved beyond that. anyway, let's get away from this thread hijack, because there were also some perverts before the council and the same general atmosphere of silence within the hierarchy AND in the culture of the laity did keep much of that hidden. there was a serious problem of discipline that belongs to the post-conciliar period; and also, perhaps, a problem of formation as there was a subculture of homosexuals in the seminaries that definitely would have impeded a proper formation and screening against perverts. but let's please move away from this; split it into a different thread if you want to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernard

bernard

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not a sedevacantist. Not there really is such a thing, what you call a sedevacantist is just someone who, applying the teachings of the Church fathers, arrives at the conclusion that the man occupying the papal chair could not possibly be the pope. The main reason people believe that John Paul II was not pope is public heresey, a heretic can not be a Catholic much less a pope. But personally I believe that a real pope was elected in 1958, and his election was suppressed. therefore we did have a pope but he wasn't who most people thought he was. That could still be the case today, but anyway if you want to label me call me a sedeimpedist (believes the true pope was impeded from taking the chair).

Secondly I didn't hijack this thread, I made a comment about where Fellay is at the moment with regards to his society and the choice he faces in accepting the preamble.
Then in response to some negative replies I pointed out that the problems with the SSPX are pretty small compared to the problems with the pope, the mass, Vatican II etc.

Edited by bernard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...