FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is the SSPX Just Being Stubborn? Father Z Answers
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
"From a reader:

"Why is the SSPX still not in union with Rome? Especially with groups
like the FFSP what problem do they still have with us? They could
unite with Rome, and still basically continue as usual. Am I missing
something big? Are they just being stubborn?"

Well.. yes.  They are being stubborn!

It is of the essence of being traditional and being a Christian to be stubborn, by the way.  We have some other, fancy words for “stubborn” when speaking about fidelity to doctrine and our identity, but “stubborn” will do for the sake of this entry.

Christians are stubborn in the face of all sorts of things the world has to offer.  And the SSPX would say they are being stubborn about those very same things, for they fear, or think, or have the suspicion that some of those worldly things have been embraced by the Church in a way that is contrary to her God-given mission."

continued...
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/quaeritur...-stubborn/


Fr. Z...

Lol.
That was an excellent post by Fr. Z.
I read this piece and thought it was balanced.  I see that Fr. Jackson, SSPX, approved of it as well.

I was irritated, however, at Fr. Z's response to moon1234.  Moon seemed to post a very reasonable reply but in the end was more or less told to shut-up and listen to what others have to say.  I stopped contributing to Fr. Z's blog long ago because of remarks he made to me on what I thought was an entirely reasonable reply.  He even deleted a reply I gave considerable thought to one time.   Hey, it's his blog - he can do or say what he wants.  If I were Moon, however, he would never have to worry about another post from me on his blog.   Although I will never respond to one of his blog posts again, I will say here that I feel he did write a nice piece.

In any event, I detect a change in Fr. Z's attitude (for the better) toward the SSPX in the last year or two.  I really enjoyed reading the very nice mutual exchange of words between Fr. Jackson, SSPX and Fr. Z in the comments. 

So you shouldn't be completely lost, some people take longer than others to wake up, for some it is even gradual.
tim ;D
(10-21-2010, 08:36 PM)piusx1914 Wrote: [ -> ]In any event, I detect a change in Fr. Z's attitude (for the better) toward the SSPX in the last year or two. 

The fact that he admits that they are "Catholics not in perfect communion" is ten steps up. He used to just scream schismatic.
Still blowing hot and cold out of both sides of his mouth.

It is of the essence of being traditional and being a Christian to be stubborn, by the way.  We have some other, fancy words for “stubborn” when speaking about fidelity to doctrine and our identity, but “stubborn” will do for the sake of this entry.


Then throws in the typical discrediting comments:

In some ways the stubbornness of the SSPX is laudable.  It is laudable if they are really interested in getting at the truth and not just in getting their way, as if they alone are arbiters of what is Catholic......blah blah

Typical modernist speak - one step forward, two steps back.

Anyone know where he stands?
(10-21-2010, 09:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone know where he stands?

He's the typical neo-con.
He was a lot fairer to the SSPX than he has been in the past.
He is a marketing exec for the Holy See. 

Nothing is the Popes' fault.  Nothing.  Ever. 

Canonical Unity is the greatest thing.  Whether or not it's unity in the faith is less important.  Because.....don't you know...Pope Benedict is the Pope of Christian Unity. 

He's basically a smart guy who thinks he's much smarter than he really is.  In other words, he's an idiot. 

Just look at his savaging of the comments that people put below his whitewashing of the Popes. 


Where hair splitting starts is who decides what is a grave situation and what is not. Canon law seems to favor the person taking the action and what the disposition of their mind is.

[Canon law was issued by the Lawgiver, who alone is the final authority in its interpretation.]

This is silliness as if the Lawgiver can boldly lie about his own laws and people are supposed to accept lies for truth. 

I don't think it would happen but if Pope Benedict said, "LeFebvre was right and John Paul II was wrong."  would Fr. Z's neck start to smoke like an android from the first Star Trek series when Kirk would get them into a feedback loop through his circular reasoning? 

If they truely believe there is a necessity, that they are in the right, then the amount of punishment due to the action can be mitigated.

[now irrelevant.]

You fool!  It's irrelevant.  Anything that implies that John Paul II was wrong is irrelevant now!  Justice?  Irrelevant!  LeFebvre's good name?  Irrelevant!

In the last two weeks, I have had it with dirtbag deceptive priests.  The worst of which are the ones that pretend they are traditional.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17