Don't make stuff up - you might end up in need of the confessional . (Good news is you can do that face to face now).

It is the SSPX claiming an emergency when no emergency exists that is the issue.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Don't make stuff up - you might end up in need of the confessional . (Good news is you can do that face to face now).

It is the SSPX claiming an emergency when no emergency exists that is the issue.

---

If the state of the post conciliar church doesn't strike you as an emergency, you're playing for the other team.

---

I wonder how many others will use the same playbook for whatever cause they believe needs it?

Do you disagree with the Pope's position that unity/disunity of the Church should not "revolve around sexual matters"?

It would seem that obedience is of a greater concern.

I am Orthodox and it's absolutely wild to see this play out. TC, FS, and now this looming in July. So much change.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

---

I'm older than all but Fr. Schreiber.

747Ag said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

---

I'm older than all but Fr. Schreiber.

---

I'm only older than 1.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

TSJ said:

---

I am Orthodox and it's absolutely wild to see this play out. TC, FS, and now this looming in July. So much change.

---

---

Peace be with you!

Vox Clamantis said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

---

I'm older than all but Fr. Schreiber.

---

I'm only older than 1.

---

Get off my lawn!



Kids these days...

Somewhat related to the topic, the SSPX put out a trailer that looks awesome. It shows many aspects of being a missionary priest completely devoted to Christ. In the video you'll see Fr Goldade, soon to be Bp. Goldade, God willing.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Seems like SSPx heretics need to bend the knee instead of going against their holy father.

---

What!?!?

I don't think that word thinks what you think it means.

Although it's all just more bad fruit from the RCC decision to split the Church.

At a point you should look around and wonder if maybe you made a mistake.

What stage of grief is this?

PabloSerna said:

---

What stage of grief is this?

---

Stage 5 I think…

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Seems like SSPx heretics need to bend the knee instead of going against their holy father.

---

What!?!?

I don't think that word thinks what you think it means.

Although it's all just more bad fruit from the RCC decision to split the Church.

At a point you should look around and wonder if maybe you made a mistake.

---

Split?

99.9999999% uses the Ordinary Form?

0.00000001% uses the Extraordinary Form?

That ain't a "split".

fc2112 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Seems like SSPx heretics need to bend the knee instead of going against their holy father.

---

What!?!?

I don't think that word thinks what you think it means.

Although it's all just more bad fruit from the RCC decision to split the Church.

At a point you should look around and wonder if maybe you made a mistake.

---

Split?

99.9999999% uses the Ordinary Form?

0.00000001% uses the Extraordinary Form?

That ain't a "split".

---

He's talking about the one that happened almost 1000 years ago.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Do you disagree with the Pope's position that unity/disunity of the Church should not "revolve around sexual matters"?

It would seem that obedience is of a greater concern.

---

I believe he was chastising the German Church, not those of us adhering to the timeless Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

So yes, I believe the German Church should get with the rest of the church and stop trying to read nuance into what is explicit.

---

Nah. pabloSerna is right

Leo doesn't care that the German Church is doing this. If he did, he would've done something about it by now

This seemed like a fair representation of the history related to this situation. If it is truly accurate, it makes me unsympathetic to the SSPX. They seem to be playing word games over the past 50 years. I see no reason why they will not proceed with the unauthorized consecration of bishops. In doing so, it should be a permanent excommunication. I'm not a fan of some of Vatican II but I trust that the Holy Spirit guides the church and the Holy Father in matters of church teachings. That is part of what it means when you say you are a Catholic.

Naa mi Capitan … I posted the letter from the DDF for your reading leisure. They are two different issues if you read through them. But I realize that may be a challenge for short attention spans. Surely not talking about you.

PabloSerna said:

---

Naa mi Capitan … I posted the letter from the DDF for your reading leisure. They are two different issues if you read through them. But I realize that may be a challenge for short attention spans. Surely not talking about you.

---

Yeah no need, as I have already read it, and it changes nothing. Perhaps it is you who needs to work on his attention capabilities.

If you'll go back and read, I said he would DO something if he really cared

Publishing a letter to the Germans basically saying "y'all shouldn't be doing that" doesn't amount to anything. The Vatican didn't "do" diddly squat. Reminds me of the "oh you STRENUOUSLY object" mockery Tom Cruise heaped on Demi Moore

In fact, quite the opposite, as was evident in the plane interview, where he said (in essence) we made our position, it's no longer going to be a focus. Basically, "we consider this matter closed"

Meanwhile the Germans keep on keeping on with impunity

Try to pay attention, if you can

I thought the video was unbiased as well. That being said, I don't think the point of the video was to discuss an in depth analysis of either "sides" argument, but simply to state the assertions. If it seems like the FSSPX is simply playing "word games" to get what they want, then I think you are missing some major points or lack an understanding of their positions, which would be easy to do based off of a single video, or even after several. Really, these topics are quite complicated, delicate, and yet hold severe gravity.

Anyways rather than make a second post I'll just add to this one. A 3 part documentary is being published. Part one was released yesterday. I have some friends in the video which is kinda cool. I am not an emotional guy but I will admit there were some times I held some tears. I would recommend at least watching it and seeing the disposition of the seminarians and priests before coming to judgements of their character, fidelity, charity, love of the Church, and most importantly, love of Christ.



As always, God bless you!

I will check that video out. Thanks for posting it. I'll admit there are lots of details one this issue that I may not fully understand. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on that matter for that reason. I would agree that no one should be calling into question the "character, fidelity, charity,..." of a fellow Christian regardless of order or denomination. I would only argue to the limit the definition of a Christian as someone accepting the tenants of the Apostles Creed. The central question here is, "what does it mean to be Catholic?"



There is great division within the Christian community as to what is "true". There are people who are genuine in their view and sincere in their faith yet themselves differently in relation to Christ. This was bound to happen due to our human nature. As a Catholic, it is my belief that Christ established the church and gave the keys to Peter who has then passed that authority to the next Vicar of Christ. That was done to give a God a voice on Earth as situations would most certainly arise. Christ wanted someone to define the proper relationships needed in order to maintain universality. Someone to say that is a "6" or that is a "9". We may not like it, but as faithful Catholics we should work toward the perspective we are guided to have and trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding that vision.

Christ gave a promise that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" when he established His church (Mat 16:18). As such, if the SSPX is correct in that the Pope and the ecumenical council of Vatican II were wrong, then either Christ was wrong or the underpinning of the Catholic church is wrong, and it should cease to exist.

That appears to be a major oversimplification, in my opinion. To say the pope cannot err is essentially hyperpapalism. And as such the pope could be wrong (in non-infallible circumstances) and still be pope. (I apologize if that is putting words in your mouth. That's my understanding of the implication of saying either the pope is wrong and Christ was wrong, or the SSPX is wrong. This issue isn't really a dilemma here, as the premise isn't real.) Many would argue that Lefebvre's actions were guided by the Holy Ghost protecting the Church from the gates of Hell. A similar example of this is St. Athanasius. In reality, the charism of infallibility is somewhat rare in the office of the papacy. I think the Society would say that the fact the Church is still intact is solely because of Christ's promise. Like when we have had horrendous popes throughout history, or crises of widespread heresies (Arianism, Nestorianism, Gallicanism, etc.) the Church prevails in the end.

Quote:

---

Many would argue that Lefebvre's actions were guided by the Holy Ghost protecting the Church from the gates of Hell. A similar example of this is St. Athanasius.

---

This is one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen and shows a stunning lack of historical insight and understanding. St. Athanasius defended Church teaching against heretics while the SSPX actively courts schism with the Catholic Church and openly defies the Vicar of Christ. Athanasius was a Pillar of the Church while the SSPX seeks to fracture the Church. What an appalling attempt to draw parallels between an incredible Church Father and a group of disobedient schismatics who are sowing discord because they didn't like the results of an ecumenical council.

It could not possibly be worse than those who liken Lefebvre to Luther lol. No, my brother, I think your accusation is unfair. Clearly, I did not mean that it was a 1:1 comparison. They are undoubtedly different in many ways. The point being that Arianism spread vastly throughout the Church, despite it being a novel innovation and heresy. St Athanasius was in the minority, and was disciplined for it, though he stood by the true teaching of the Church. You may disagree with the FSSPX, that is fine I'm not going to say everyone has to see their concerns and conclusions the same way, but to accuse them of those incredibly inaccurate, and worse yet, uncharitable ways, I think says more about you than them or I. Are they schismatics? Objectively not. They could become so one day, but have not yet been. How many times have we been told from the hierarchy that it is an "internal ecclesiastical matter?" Truthfully, it wouldn't be difficult to provide many examples that show their disposition against a schismatic temperament, but they have been discussed ad nauseam both in this thread and outside. And that they "seek to fracture the Church"? Whether they are correct in the matter or not, they certainly do not SEEK to harm the Church in anyway. Or that their issue is as superficial and simple as "they didn't like the results of the council?" My friend, if it was that simple none of us would find ourselves struggling with these questions. All they intend is to adhere to Orthodox Catholicism and not apparent novel innovations.

I am curious, how many who say these things have ever met a priest of the Society? Or the FSSP, ICKSP, etc. for that matter. Anecdotally, it seems as though those with the harshest accusations and worst understanding are the furthest away from being effected by the situation.

I just ask, maintain charity.