SSPX says no to Rome
#51
Quote:Though I agree that charity is the operative message here, but judging from some of the negative reactions at the prospect of an SSPX agreement with Rome, the tone around here has changed ... really changed and for the worse.

The important question is why is someone like Bishop Tissier against a "deal?"

Is there anything wrog with New Mass substantially? Is there anything wrong with the texts, and not the interpretation, of Vatican II? Have their been disciplinary, doctrinal, and liturgical innovations pushed by Rome since Vatican II? If so, I believe that the sedevacantist and "hardline" SSPX positions and responses are entirely justified. If not, then a "deal" should happen yesterday.
Quote:the Church as becoming the whore of Babylon, church of satan, seat of the antichrist, etc. ... and (2) who don't see the future of the Church as being some nebulous, self-righteous, loose confederacy of self-proclaimed guardians of tradition and armchair theologians, are running short on patience for that kind of horseshit.

I don't see the Church becoming any of these things. I only see her as the pillar and ground of truth, to guide all men until the end of time.

The situation in the Church right now is not so good. I simply cannot recommend someone to go to any Catholic church in this archdiocese. Not becuase of personal immoralities or scandals, but because of doctrinal and liturgical perversions.

Look at your own neck of the woods. Fr. Rodriguez, whom I very much respect (I've been in contact with some of his parishoniers) is essentially the only priest in his diocese speaking the entire truth of Christ and His Church. What does he get? Sent off to the boondocks.

Today, a priest in my archdiocese gave a scathing anti-modernist sermon, explaining what the heresy is and the situation in the Church. I doubt any other cleric has done this here in the last 40 years. The only one to come close might be the local Opus Dei, but he would say everything is really a - ok. So whether the sedes are right or FSSPers are right, the situation is not good right now.
Quote:While I agree Adeodatus' post may have been out of line, it's only a rash reaction to the general tomfoolery running amok here on FE with all of its presumptions, logical fallacies, bad philosophy, stunted theology and general immaturity.

Of course. All of us love Christ and His Church, and I can't get mad at AD01 for reacting to what he sees as an attack against the Church.
Reply
#52
(07-16-2012, 03:27 AM)Guardian Wrote: I find it amusing that as soon as a Sede is criticized we have half a dozen people jumping on that person for being uncharitable or my favorite term...."unfair".  I can't count how many wasted posts I've seen where all someone says is, "thats not fair he's not in the cornfield to defend himself." My view is that if a Sede is posting something that's controversial enough for someone else to call them out on it, than they either needs to rethink what they're posting or risk being banned. Its pretty cowardly to post something controversial and then slink away while you watch your "buddies" defend you.  Can we please stop coddling them like I do my 2 year old when she trips?

The lines in the sand are clearly being drawn.  I know there is no theological definition for "leaning-sede" but I've sure seen a hell of a lot of "Traditionalists" heading in that direction recently.  

God help us all.  

AFAIK Flutchman is not a sede.

John Lane was criticized for saying that Rorate Caeli was "extreme Left." That does not have to do with SVism.
Reply
#53
(07-15-2012, 08:06 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: I am confused I dont see how what the church taught for 1800 years is now considered wrong. The only conclusion I can come to is that those (SSPX, SSPV,CMRI) that hold the faith of the past 2000 years are Catholic, those that follow the Novus Ordo religion are false and the fulfillment of what our Lady of La Sallete said "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ." Yes it is very confusing. But more frightening then confusing.

Bad theology taught by some does not equal total loss of faith by all.  The SSPX et al are not THE Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church, with its head as Pope Benedict XVI, is indefectible despite what you may personally feel.

Reply
#54
(07-16-2012, 03:33 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: AFAIK Flutchman is not a sede.

John Lane was criticized for saying that Rorate Caeli was "extreme Left." That does not have to do with SVism.

(07-15-2012, 09:52 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: Sedeprevationist=That means I think the Pope was validly elected and he will become the actual Pope when he follows the Catholic faith. See SSPV

hmm....lets see.  Looks like spade, feels like a spade, and shovels dirt like a spade!
Reply
#55
(07-16-2012, 03:49 AM)Guardian Wrote: ...shovels dirt like a spade!

This is no way to speak of a fellow Catholic. No one has said that of you; nor would Christ advocate that they do so.
Reply
#56
(07-16-2012, 03:51 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 03:49 AM)Guardian Wrote: ...shovels dirt like a spade!

This is no way to speak of a fellow Catholic. No one has said that of you; nor would Christ advocate that they do so.

It was a play on words.  Instead of simply using the phrase "calling a spade a spade."

I'm not calling "sedes" dirt or anything like that.  I respect them, despite not agreeing with their views. 
Reply
#57
(07-16-2012, 03:55 AM)Guardian Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 03:51 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 03:49 AM)Guardian Wrote: ...shovels dirt like a spade!

This is no way to speak of a fellow Catholic. No one has said that of you; nor would Christ advocate that they do so.

It was a play on words.  Instead of simply using the phrase "calling a spade a spade."

I'm not calling "sedes" dirt or anything like that.  I respect them, despite not agreeing with their views. 
One can only imagine what you would call them if you didn't respect them.
:Hmm:
Reply
#58
(07-16-2012, 03:55 AM)Guardian Wrote: It was a play on words.  Instead of simply using the phrase "calling a spade a spade."

I'm not calling "sedes" dirt or anything like that.  I respect them, despite not agreeing with their views. 
A play on words usually involves an expression that cleverly reflect's a person's belief or opinion. It seemed that you had employed that particular play on words because it expressed the idea that what he was doing was "shoveling dirt." I couldn't think of any other reason why you would phrase it the way you did. But I am glad that is not what you meant. I apologize for the confusion.
Reply
#59
(07-16-2012, 04:04 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 03:55 AM)Guardian Wrote: It was a play on words.  Instead of simply using the phrase "calling a spade a spade."

I'm not calling "sedes" dirt or anything like that.  I respect them, despite not agreeing with their views. 
A play on words usually involves an expression that cleverly reflect's a person's belief or opinion. It seemed that you had employed that particular play on words because it expressed the idea that what he was doing was "shoveling dirt." I couldn't think of any other reason why you would phrase it the way you did. But I am glad that is not what you meant. I apologize for the confusion.

I understand where you're coming from....in all honesty I hadn't even thought of that.  All I thought of is what do you do with a spade? And shoveling stuff is what I came up with.  Thanks for keeping me honest though. 
Reply
#60
(07-16-2012, 04:00 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: One can only imagine what you would call them if you didn't respect them.
:Hmm:

Indeed.

Why such hatred? It seems the hatred is being directed in the wrong direction. There is so much disdain for those Catholics who hold an opinion of the crisis that disagrees with ours; there is so little disdain for those who caused the crisis in the first place.

The whole thing is backwards. If a person is angered about the situation on the Church, don't take it out on those who are also angered by it but who holds what another thinks to be an erroneous opinion about its nature and extent. If a person must be angered about the situation, take it out on the Modernists and demand that they be held accountable for causing so much confusion and dissenting opinions in the first place!

I am not sure the Sedevacantists are the problem in the Church right now, and attacking them is not going to solve the problems in the Church. There are bigger fish to fry here. Let the fryin' begin!

:bonfire:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)