It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:10 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 SSPX is the True Church 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 1:58 am
Posts: 1
New post SSPX is the True Church
SSPX


Sat May 03, 2014 2:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
When did this happen :?: :?: :?:

Boy that clears things up :shock:


Mon May 05, 2014 1:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
RbM wrote:
SSPX


Would this be the SSPX Church that subsist in the Catholic Church ? Don't leave us hanging! 8)

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri May 30, 2014 9:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
RbM wrote:
SSPX


Would this be the SSPX Church that subsist in the Catholic Church ? Don't leave us hanging! 8)


LOL!!!

The sad thing is I read an article by Bishop Tissier which hinted implicitly at the SSPX being the Church inside the Church. He says the SSPX because they do not accept the modernist heresies remains as the Church only in exile. And while I would conceed they remain in the Church, I think it would be erroneous to say they remain as the Church. Well if they remain as the Chruch in exile, where they no longer are cannot be the Church for how can the Catholic Church be able to remain in Rome and be in exile at the same time? There is a logical contradiction here!

He seems before the end of the sermon to admit the sedevacantist thesis as he properly calls those is Rome "the modernists heretics of the Conciliar Church.". Then why worry about the heretics in Rome at all? If they are not the authority, why does he refer to them as such? Is Bishop Tissier a sedeprivantist?

Quote:
.
Bishop Tissier's Pentecost Sermon
(Looking at) our position in the Church, dear faithful, we resemble a little the Holy Family;
we are in exile and yet we are the Holy Family. You see, the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and
Joseph was the seedling-Church! The Church did not yet exist but here was the Church in
seed; firstly, there was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the head of the Church, his Mystical
Body; then there was the first member of the Church, Mary, the Most Holy and Immaculate
Virgin, redeemed in advance through the blood of Jesus Christ; and there was Joseph,
cleansed of original sin, probably before his birth (we do not know exactly).

So, the Holy Family represented the Church. Well we, dear faithful, in Tradition, the Society
of St. Pius X and the friendly religious and priestly communities, we carry the Church in
exile! Since the Church is officially occupied by the Modernists, we are sent into exile,
carrying the Church within us, and this may last for a few more years, until the Lord
sends his angel and tells us, “Now you can return to the land of Israel,” officially. But we are
still carrying within us the Church!

I remember that Archbishop Lefebvre explained very well to us that we had within us, in Tradition, the four notes of the Catholic Church, the four marks of the Church, showing that, despite our abnormal situation of exile, we remain at the heart of the Catholic Church! We have indeed kept the unity of the Church, the catholicity of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
“Unity” because we have kept the faith! The unity of the Church is first of all in the Catholic faith, in that all Catholics profess the same faith! Well, we have the unity of the Church because we have the faith of all time, dear faithful, and there is no question of leaving it and compromising with the modernist heresy.

After “One”, Holy! We have kept the holiness of the Church and of that you are the proof,
dear families where God chooses these beautiful religious and priestly vocations, lives
devoted to God which are a model for the whole Church! We have kept the note of the
holiness of the Church by the grace of God.

“One, Holy,” Catholic! We also have the catholicity of the Church, for the Tradition we
represent has spread worldwide! Not only in France, not only in the United States,
represented here by its district superior, not only in Germany, represented by many pilgrims,
not only in these places ... but all over the world! You, dear pilgrims, you are the proof that
Tradition, so alive in us, is Catholic!

And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also
apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of
the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop
Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal. And therefore, as long as we remain in
the Church, we carry the Church in exile
.

So, dear faithful, we may often ask what is our vocation? Could it not be to seek from Rome
those blessings which rightfully should be ours − to seek approval and recognition? Of
course, this is a question we could ask ourselves, but it is not the essential question!

The real question we must ask ourselves is: “How should we witness to the Catholic faith
today, in the present situation of the Church which is suffering a terrible crisis?” What
witness should we bear, today? And the answer is the testimony of all the witnesses of the
Faith and the Martyrs! All these saints of the Church, these confessors of the Faith, all the
martyrs of the Church are an example for us!

So here is the answer to that question, dear faithful! This is the best way to bear witness
before the whole Church: to be on a pinnacle and publicly condemned to exile. Well, this is
to our advantage because our testimony is all the more striking for being considered a
stumbling block by the Modernists – just as Our Lord was by Herod at the time. Is it not an
advantage for the Church to see where Tradition is? This is the stumbling block for the
Modernists, for what is called the Conciliar Church, that is to say, the sect that occupies
the Catholic Church. This is an advantage for us, to be regarded as excluded and in exile,
dear faithful; to be looked upon as the “stone rejected by the builders” which will become,
and already is, the cornerstone, the stone that supports the building.

Is it not Tradition, the Catholic faith of all time that we represent? So here's why we do not
weep if we do not receive from Rome that news which was perhaps expected… or


To me this seems to be the same error as Bishop Williamson as he is insinuating that Tradition, as in the beliefs passed down to the faithful, contain all the marks of the Church WITHOUT the authoritative hierarchy unless he is claiming juridical power for the SSPX bishops!


Sat May 31, 2014 2:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
James Schroepfer wrote:

To me this seems to be the same error as Bishop Williamson as he is insinuating that Tradition, as in the beliefs passed down to the faithful, contain all the marks of the Church WITHOUT the authoritative hierarchy unless he is claiming juridical power for the SSPX bishops!


Bishop Galarreta has said on other occasions that the SSPX Bishops are exclusively epikea Bishops, and merely sacramental Bishops. BUT in this sermon he does seem to suggest a bit more, has he changed his mind? We should certainly give him the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly seems that things are changing a bit.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat May 31, 2014 4:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Tissier's almost word-for-word repeating Lefebvre in circa 1988, with one striking difference - that Apostolicity claim. It is disturbing, I agree.

De Galarreta's a different man from Tissier, Jorge!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 31, 2014 10:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
:lol: Ohh man I knew it, something kept telling me that I made a mistake with my post. :oops: Well I meant Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (is that correct now?). Funny how sometimes you type something meaning to type something else, ahaha. I blame my scumbag brain :lol: .

Certainly disturbing what he seems to suggest, its a difficult question to answer in general. I know that he LEANS strongly in favor of the Novus Ordo sacraments being invalid. So the question of Apostolicity is very much theologically something that needs to be answered. IMHO he is trying to answer this, but I think it causes more problems than it solves. It is unfortunate, because instead of having from a while ago helped spread more certainty into sacraments (think of the whole Thuc line debate, which of course we know that those who hold you can't attend Thuc line masses are wrong).

The SSPX imho, did wrong before the eyes of God. I think SV'ism would have quickly picked up more legitimacy if they would have had a lineage to +Lefebvre this was the ONE thing they had that has made them grow so big. So its kind of like they create a problem and they are the solution.

Here's how it goes:
1) Novus Ordo sacraments are doubtfully valid at best and utterly invalid at worst. The SSPX takes the former, and we take the latter.
Now notice the next step,
2) Overtime Novus Ordo sacraments tend towards invalidity, i.e. given enough time it is impossible even accepting the premise that the Novus Ordo is valid to be able to determine certainty of sacraments. The amount of investigation one has to go through to chase your Episcopal lineage and try to determine the INTENT of each one of them (is impossible in the first place). So SSPX is solution.
3) Now what other Apostolic lineage is there to rely on, one might ask!? You could certainly try the Eastern Bishop's, but given that they stand to benefit so much from Vatican II none of them have been open to this. There has been to date only one Eastern Bishop whose consecration is dubious, that Ukranian SV'ist crazy Bishop who has set himself as Ecumenical Patriarch of the East. However, there has really historically speaking never been such a Bishop he just never rose up. So in order to get ordained validly by an Eastern Bishop, you would have to pretend to accept Vatican II go through modernist seminary training and survive through all of that in order to get your orders. Since this hasn't happened or cannot be something recommended. Still the SSPX is the solution.
4) You can try going through the Old Catholic or Orthodox line, but hey this is not even a plausible solution. One cannot as a Catholic recourse to a non-Catholic Bishop, the very intent even if it gives you valid orders is excommunication to the highest degree (this is what SSPV tries to argue with the Thuc line, but Thuc was certainly a Catholic Bishop a confused man sure).
5) You can't go to through +Lefebvre because they only accept their own (trying to form some sort of worldwide monopoly on orders). Trust me SV'ist tried this, so as a result they needed to look for a solution to the problem which made things a bit harder/confusing then it should have been.
6) Notice that the two men +Carmona, +Des Lauriers have not made any Episcopi Vaganti (as the SSPX has claimed), unlike the Palmar de Troya fiasco. From these two, we have the SV'ist lineage for the most part. However, then the SSPX will present all the problems of the Thuc line, and semi argue that in a similar fashion some of them are dubious. So now you are back to square one, more possibilities of invalid orders!
7) So you can try and convince an older Bishop who has certainly valid orders, to ordain you (what the SSPV) did. Notice how long it took for them to find someone to get to this point.
8) Convert an Orthodox Bishop, into the Catholic faith and then get orders from that. I don't think anybody has successfully done that yet, I could be wrong but someone can correct me. From what I have read, there is nothing like that. There has been some people that have claimed this to happen, but usually if you investigate a little further its a schismatic Bishop he has remained Schismatic and not Catholic.

So this is where the idea of the SSPX being the One True Church can come from, because as +Williamson et al have argued... They believe that they are keeping the Apostolicity of the Church alive in the Western Rite, where the majority of faithful belong to. They are essentially the back burner lit candle that is keep the purity of the faith alive (they might have the faith, but not the purity of the faith). Too many errors on the nature of the Church, its form of government, discipline, liturgical (1962) forms and so forth to claim they keep the purity of the faith (its just enough to keep them Catholic). While it is certainly true that they keep the faith, it cannot be argued that they keep the purity of the faith whole and entire. They certainly err on many serious grievous matters, sure maybe at this point not enough to make them heretics. BUT the errors are certainly serious enough, to make someone have enough cognitive dissonance that over time if you keep the position of the SSPX there tends to be some gravitational pull towards the Conciliar Church (personally I have felt this strongly, to the point that for 3 years I was almost exclusively indult, this was recent also). If you ask the FSSP, they see themselves as direct heirs of +Lefebvre except doing everything with permission. "Inside of the Church", trying to change things from "within." I really think that they don't reject the Subsistit argument, because they see the SSPX as within the Church, but outside of its formal structures. So in a way, they accept the whole argument of semi-partial communion even if they are not able to grasp the connection.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Reflecting on this further, it strikes me as another typical example of the pressure of events producing errors in theology. Fr. Cekada is on record saying essentially the same thing in relation to Bishops Dolan and Sanborn, for example. It's actually bizarre, but there you have it - learned men saying things that collide head-on with everything they know about the matter from the theology manuals. In Fr. Cekada's case the bad conclusion arises from his bad premiss that there cannot be any bishops with ordinary jurisdiction remaining in the world.

The great historical precedent for this is John Gerson, who developed the Conciliarist error (later a heresy - it held that a Council is superior to a pope) under pressure of the Great Western Schism. Gerson was indisputably a very holy man, and almost peerless in his learning. He was favoured by God with mystical experiences, and had huge authority as a theologian. Yet his error was in the face of all of theology. The Council of Constance adopted this error, which illustrates Gerson's influence (although he wasn't the only theorist pushing it). When Pope Martin V confirmed the decrees of the Council he omitted to confirm its Conciliarist texts, thus consigning them to the dustbin of history.

A further reflection is suggested by these thoughts, which is that we may yet live to see these present errors amongst traditional Catholics grow to dominate theology as the Conciliarist error did, and even witness their approval by a true Council called to elect a pope and end the crisis - and the only salvation will be that the new pope does not confirm the errors of the Council to which he owes his own legitimacy. All of this has happened, as the history of the GWS shows, and so we should not be too quick to rule out a repeat of these events in future. Which really is a reminder to watch and pray!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
John Lane wrote:
Tissier's almost word-for-word repeating Lefebvre in circa 1988, with one striking difference - that Apostolicity claim. It is disturbing, I agree.

De Galarreta's a different man from Tissier, Jorge!


Quote:
And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also
apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of
the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop
Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal. And therefore, as long as we remain in
the Church, we carry the Church in exile.


Bishop Tissier is speaking materially, not formally, and thus his words are accurate. To infer that he speaks formally is to impugn the man's basic grasp of the theology of orders, which is insulting, I think. Note he says "have received the episcopate" not "have received ordinary jurisdiction." Also, to take his statement as exclusive of other traditional Catholics, wherever they are found, is also rash and offensive. I rest.


Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:21 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Caminus, I think his unclear ideas about jurisdiction contribute to this unclear notion of Apostolicity. See Page 4 ff. of this article for an example: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... _Popes.pdf

I agree that it's rash to take his words as excluding non-SSPX people from the Church, but it isn't rash to understand him as excluding other traditional bishops from this Apostolicity that he claims. After all, it is based upon the "mission" from Archbishop Lefebvre, which the others simply don't have.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
What is the basis for the proposition that only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction over a territorial diocese are formal Successors of the Apostles? It's not explicitly revealed as far as I know so it must be a theological conclusion drawn from the deposit of the faith. Correct? How did theologians arrive at that conclusion? If they didn't arrive at that conclusion then isn't it true that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Successor of the Apostles for as long as he held the office of Superior General of the SSPX? He was a bishop and he held an office (Superior General) which gave him the authority to bind the members, correct? Or maybe I am confused about the legal status of the SSPX? Is the SG of the SSPX an ecclesiastical office or not?


Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Does anyone have any comments on this Fr. Cekada article concerning the legal status of the SSPX?

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=84&catname=12


Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:02 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Well, he's right about most of it. Fr. Scott does not seem to be across these matters at all.

I differ with Fr. Cekada on some points, however. Rome approved the incardination of men into the SSPX prior to the suppression. Whatever the technicalities of law, this is an over-riding factor proving that the Fraternity had permanent canonical existence. This is because incardination is permanent and utterly incompatible with an institute which has only temporary status. One can point out that this shows what a mess Rome was in etc., but that's only a comment on what caused the canonical reality. The reality is as it is. The essential argument here is that Rome permanently erected the SSPX tacitly, by approving the incardination of priests, or in the alternative, this act by Rome proves that by that stage the Fraternity had already been permanently erected. It's at least a probable argument, and natural justice then permits one to stand upon it until and unless it is dealt with authoritatively, which has never been done (even by apostate "rome").

The role of supplied jurisdiction in these various acts needs to be kept in view also. Jurisdiction is supplied for the common good, so it works to validate acts which are objectively for the good of souls, but not for evil acts. The latter are radically incapable of authorisation by the Church. So even on the hypothesis that the Bishop of Fribourg had no real authority, his erection of the Fraternity would be considered valid, and the same argument applies to the tacit approval of the Fraternity by Rome.

On the suppression, I say that Paul VI was not pope, and therefore his act was invalid. Even if his status were doubtful, only a certain law obliges, so his act was for all intents and purposes invalid. This is another reason that I have urged the Fraternity to make explicit its own adherence to Archbishop Lefebvre's implicit true position, that the Conciliar popes have objectively a doubtful status. This approach clears the major problem of the 1988 consecrations as well as the utterly illegal and unjust suppression in 1975.

This may look like a having-your-cake-and-eating-it approach but it's the way that the law works. The Code's overarching aim is the salvation of souls - the supreme law - and therefore it incorporates principles such as strict (i.e. narrow, limited) interpretation of laws which limit the free rights of individuals.

Canon 19: Laws that establish a penalty or restrict the free exercise of one's rights, or establish an exception from the law must be interpreted in a strict sense. It has always been an axiom of interpretation of Canon Law that odious laws are to be explained in such a sense as not to unduly extend them to cases not strictly covered by the words of the law, while in favorable laws a more benign interpretation is allowed.

Canon 20: If there is no definite rule of law, neither in the general nor in the particular law, concerning some affair, a norm of action may be taken from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the mildness proper to Canon Law, from the manner and custom of handling similar cases in the Roman Curia, and from the common and accepted teaching of doctors. In the application of penalties, however, this liberal interpretation must not be adopted.

I'm not saying that either of these canons directly applies to any of the above, but merely highlighting that the law is not a tyranny.

It would be great if somebody with a fully traditional outlook and principles, but without any axe to grind, could produce a full canonical study of these questions. A big job, but a worthwhile exercise.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:13 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
ClemensMaria wrote:
What is the basis for the proposition that only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction over a territorial diocese are formal Successors of the Apostles? It's not explicitly revealed as far as I know so it must be a theological conclusion drawn from the deposit of the faith. Correct? How did theologians arrive at that conclusion?

Look it up! All of this is dealt with in the theological manuals scanned and available here. http://strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_s ... index.html For example, "Hence, in confiding His mission to the Apostles, He expressly refers to His own mission from the Father: 'As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.' And He communicates to them His threefold function of ruling, teaching, and sanctifying." So a successor of the Apostles properly speaking is one who exercises all three offices - which means he has jurisdiction (the power of ruling).

ClemensMaria wrote:
If they didn't arrive at that conclusion then isn't it true that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Successor of the Apostles ...


The way this is handled is that once a Successor of the Apostles always a Successor of the Apostles, barring departure from the Church. In other words, retired bishops retain their status. So yes, he was a Successor of the Apostles until he died, but his episcopal offspring are not. They have no mission from the Church, no ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore no basis upon which to be described as Successors of the Apostles.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Please ignore this if it threatens to delay the publication of your book. I'm praying every day for the success of that effort so far be it from me to burden you with distractions. But I have been struggling to understand apostolicity and I have heard contradictory things about it so I would like to try to clear up my confusion. According to Van Noort (I believe, among others) apostolicity implies apostolicity of doctrine so no one can be a successor of the Apostles who does not teach the same doctrine as the Apostles taught. That would rule out all public heretics, Protestants, apostates, etc. But apostolicity also implies apostolicity of mission. If I understand correctly, this means that no one who is not sent by the Church (of which the Pope is the highest authority) can be a successor of the Apostles. Being sent by the Church means that one has been legitimately given an ecclesiastical office with ordinary jurisdiction. But this is where it gets very confusing. How are ecclesiastical offices with ordinary jurisdiction defined? Also, who has the authority the errect an ecclesiastical office with ordinary jurisdiction? Who has the authority to appoint a man to an ecclesiastical office with ordinary jurisdiction? It seems to me that a lot of these points are basically ecclesiastical laws. Under normal circumstances where there is a reigning Pope and a well-defined and publicly known hierarchical order these points are easy to understand because Canon Law defines them. But what happens when the Pope is struck down and the hierachical order is obscured? How does ecclesiastical law handle the situation? My understanding is that when an ecclesiastical law clearly impedes the mission of the Church it has no force. In that case, is it possible to obtain ecclesiastical offices with ordinary jurisdiction by means other than those defined by existing Canon Law? I'm thinking in terms of elections or even voluntary agreements where the clergy recognize a bishop as having jurisdiction over some group of the faithful.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
I don't mind you asking at all, however for your own convenience I will point out that most of the questions that people have these days have been handled before, including these.

To search the forums, use Google Advanced Search: http://www.google.com/advanced_search

Then put your terms in the appropriate box and copy into the box entitled, "site or domain:" the URL for this site - http://strobertbellarmine.net

It's a very powerful method and produces excellent results, unlike the native search funtion at the top of each page of the forums. It also covers all of the material on the site and not just in the forums.

Anyway, here's one thread you can consult (there are others also). http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... php?p=4349

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
RbM wrote:
SSPX


Would this be the SSPX Church that subsist in the Catholic Church ? Don't leave us hanging! 8)


YES!!!

If Lumen Gentium was the last legal document by a valid Pope. Is the phrase "the mystical body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" expressly a heresy or even a definitive error? If not, could this be a document where Paul 6 who up until this time was valid Pope (formal or material I'm not sure) tacitly retired from his office as he redefined his office from the Papacy to head of Vatican institution (which was Catholic at the time but since his tacit retirement, gradually lost its Catholic members, and was gradually replaced with non-Catholic members. There may even yet be some Catholics (at heart, by desire or actually) in that Church. Some of the Catholics lost the faith and stayed in the institution headed by Montini founder of New Church, which was no longer one and the same as the Catholic Church. Paul 6 in this same last official document of the Catholic Church granted jurisdiction to all future Catholic Bishops in the one remaining worldwide diocese of Rome (whether inside our outside the Vatican Institution)?

Now the two future documents [after Lumen Gentium] of V2 contained indisputable heresy and could not have been approved by a valid Pope. These documents tried to grant jurisdiction to everyone whether schismatic, heretical and or apostate. But Lumen Gentium did not do this.

The theory would propose that Lumen Gentium was the last act of a valid Pope where he granted habitual jurisdiction to all future Catholic Bishops and where he redefined his office from the papacy to the head of a newly created conglomerate, namely The "Vatican 2 Church", to be later more commonly known as the "Novus Ordo Church".

If this theory is correct I believe Paul 6 would have been prevented from erring, though not from being incredibly ambiguous, until his new office was officially created with the approval of LG. He was a valid Pope until that time and the universal jurisdiction (the ability to be formal apostolic bishops over their respective flocks) he granted to future Catholic Bishops would have been within his power.

Further, if this theory is true these same [traditional] Catholic Bishops would have the ability to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope.

Supposing this theory is smashed to smithereens, legitimately, could you answer the difference between the Bishops consecrated in past interregnums and the ones consecrated during the current one? Also please completely separate the doctrinal aspect regarding the papal mandate (explaining how the mandate can be implied or be implicit and in what ways we can know for sure the mandate is not even implicit) from the disciplinary aspects of it so we can fully understand the distinctions and make the proper applications.

At first glance the theory might appear kooky. But we are dealing with kooky :twisted: things man. :)

Admittedly I have no theology manuals to quote from but I am not sure any were written that dealt with our current circumstances.

Thank you for allowing me a voice. I'm not telling anyone anything. The only reason a person like me is on this forum is to learn. But I present the objection as best as I possibly can in order to get the best possible answer I can, realizing full well that no one has all the answers right now. You could say I'm playing devil's advocate just so I can extract responses that will more fully inform me on a topic that has had me confused for some time. Thanks for bearing with me on this. No more kooky posts after this.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Maria Looch wrote:
No more kooky posts after this.


Good!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Maria Looch wrote:
The theory would propose that Lumen Gentium was the last act of a valid Pope where he granted habitual jurisdiction to all future Catholic Bishops and where he redefined his office from the papacy to the head of a newly created conglomerate, namely The "Vatican 2 Church", to be later more commonly known as the "Novus Ordo Church".

If this theory is correct I believe Paul 6 would have been prevented from erring, though not from being incredibly ambiguous, until his new office was officially created with the approval of LG. He was a valid Pope until that time and the universal jurisdiction (the ability to be formal apostolic bishops over their respective flocks) he granted to future Catholic Bishops would have been within his power.

Further, if this theory is true these same [traditional] Catholic Bishops would have the ability to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope.


I don't think that theory is kooky and I certainly don't think you are a kook for posting it. I don't know how you came up with that theory but I have heard it before. I have in my possession a significant article laying out in detail the basis for that theory. I haven't read it all the way through yet because I don't think that I am qualified to assess it properly. I feel like I need to develop a deeper understanding of what pre-Vatican2 theologians were teaching about ecclesiology before I could understand whether or not the theory could hold water. But I appreciate that someone at least is attempting to explain what happened and how we got where we are now and how we can get back to where we ought to be. Even if the theory is wrong, it is a good sign that people are now trying to figure out how we can resolve the crisis. I was happy in October 2013 when I started looking into the SV thesis to find a lot of great information explaining what the situation is today but I didn't find as much info on how we got here and I didn't find hardly anything at all on how we get out of this mess. We may not know definitively how we got here until the last judgement but we definitely have to figure out how we are going to get out of this mess. The salvation of many souls depends on it.

By the way, as far as I know, that theory was first proposed by Griff Ruby in his book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I think he has developed it quite a bit since that book was published.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:16 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Please, people, this is perfect for Cathinfo, where it doesn't matter what you think or post!

For you, Maria Looch, from the Rules:
Quote:
If you can find the time to post your opinions and beliefs, then you can use the same time to find the evidence. If like most people your time is severely limited, then please reorganise your limited time so that if you can't post multiple opinions or beliefs plus evidence, then stick to one opinion or belief and its evidence until you have the available time to offer more.

The alternatives to this policy are two. One possibility is that the Bellarmine Forums becomes a free publishing platform for whatever impiety, theological error, or nonsense that any member feels like posting. The second possibility is that the moderators allow a free-for-all and fulfill their responsibilities to God and man by spending huge amounts of time finding sources to contradict errors, and even more time writing refutations of bad arguments. The first possibility is fundamentally opposed to Christian doctrine and right reason; the second is unfair and stupid (and still opposed to Christian doctrine anyway).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
ClemensMaria wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
The theory would propose that Lumen Gentium was the last act of a valid Pope where he granted habitual jurisdiction to all future Catholic Bishops and where he redefined his office from the papacy to the head of a newly created conglomerate, namely The "Vatican 2 Church", to be later more commonly known as the "Novus Ordo Church".

If this theory is correct I believe Paul 6 would have been prevented from erring, though not from being incredibly ambiguous, until his new office was officially created with the approval of LG. He was a valid Pope until that time and the universal jurisdiction (the ability to be formal apostolic bishops over their respective flocks) he granted to future Catholic Bishops would have been within his power.

Further, if this theory is true these same [traditional] Catholic Bishops would have the ability to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope.


I don't think that theory is kooky and I certainly don't think you are a kook for posting it. I don't know how you came up with that theory but I have heard it before. I have in my possession a significant article laying out in detail the basis for that theory. I haven't read it all the way through yet because I don't think that I am qualified to assess it properly. I feel like I need to develop a deeper understanding of what pre-Vatican2 theologians were teaching about ecclesiology before I could understand whether or not the theory could hold water. But I appreciate that someone at least is attempting to explain what happened and how we got where we are now and how we can get back to where we ought to be. Even if the theory is wrong, it is a good sign that people are now trying to figure out how we can resolve the crisis. I was happy in October 2013 when I started looking into the SV thesis to find a lot of great information explaining what the situation is today but I didn't find as much info on how we got here and I didn't find hardly anything at all on how we get out of this mess. We may not know definitively how we got here until the last judgement but we definitely have to figure out how we are going to get out of this mess. The salvation of many souls depends on it.

By the way, as far as I know, that theory was first proposed by Griff Ruby in his book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I think he has developed it quite a bit since that book was published.


Griff Ruby means well, but yes I think he concedes too much about the Conciliar Church. He thinks that epikea Bishop's possess original jurisdiction and I believe that all of his errors are based on that premise.

He fails to see that the lack of unity among traditionalists (that is external lets give a hug and get along with each other, we have unity of faith which is all that matters), is proof that SV'ism is correct. I.e. this is what an extended period of Sedevacante will do to the faithful, once the shepherd has been struck the sheep will be scattered.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
ClemensMaria wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
The theory would propose that Lumen Gentium was the last act of a valid Pope where he granted habitual jurisdiction to all future Catholic Bishops and where he redefined his office from the papacy to the head of a newly created conglomerate, namely The "Vatican 2 Church", to be later more commonly known as the "Novus Ordo Church".

If this theory is correct I believe Paul 6 would have been prevented from erring, though not from being incredibly ambiguous, until his new office was officially created with the approval of LG. He was a valid Pope until that time and the universal jurisdiction (the ability to be formal apostolic bishops over their respective flocks) he granted to future Catholic Bishops would have been within his power.

Further, if this theory is true these same [traditional] Catholic Bishops would have the ability to form an imperfect council and elect a Pope.


I don't think that theory is kooky and I certainly don't think you are a kook for posting it. I don't know how you came up with that theory but I have heard it before. I have in my possession a significant article laying out in detail the basis for that theory. I haven't read it all the way through yet because I don't think that I am qualified to assess it properly. I feel like I need to develop a deeper understanding of what pre-Vatican2 theologians were teaching about ecclesiology before I could understand whether or not the theory could hold water. But I appreciate that someone at least is attempting to explain what happened and how we got where we are now and how we can get back to where we ought to be. Even if the theory is wrong, it is a good sign that people are now trying to figure out how we can resolve the crisis. I was happy in October 2013 when I started looking into the SV thesis to find a lot of great information explaining what the situation is today but I didn't find as much info on how we got here and I didn't find hardly anything at all on how we get out of this mess. We may not know definitively how we got here until the last judgement but we definitely have to figure out how we are going to get out of this mess. The salvation of many souls depends on it.

By the way, as far as I know, that theory was first proposed by Griff Ruby in his book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I think he has developed it quite a bit since that book was published.


Griff Ruby means well, but yes I think he concedes too much about the Conciliar Church. He thinks that epikea Bishop's possess original jurisdiction and I believe that all of his errors are based on that premise.

He fails to see that the lack of unity among traditionalists (that is external lets give a hug and get along with each other, we have unity of faith which is all that matters), is proof that SV'ism is correct. I.e. this is what an extended period of Sedevacante will do to the faithful, once the shepherd has been struck the sheep will be scattered.


Just in defense of Griff [who is definitely SV and is keenly aware of the divisions among us] I will say he says those who look for the hierarchy in the Conciliar Church concede too much about the conciliar Church i.e. dioceses, physical territory, and hierarchy. His "errors" are based on Van Noort, at least in part. He did a whole youtube series reading directly from a book by Van Noort on the Church, from begging to end if I recall correctly. He did articles "Vatican on the Brain" that expressed this thought in regards to people putting too much emphasis on the Conciliar Church. I wish he posted here [unless he does so already] so he could defend himself and at least go on record on to say what he believes and why and what he basis it upon. I don't think he pulled it out of a hat. He is very patient with me answering all my questions and objections. He had an article published in The Four Marks which expressed the opinion that the [traditional] Catholic Bishops are the hierarchy. I believe articles in that paper are vetted by good Priests. I would post links to his articles on the topic if that is allowed here. But will refrain until I get the go ahead as John Lane has already expressed disapproval. I do wish the experts here [the best I have seen on any forum] would read his articles and give their thoughts on them. I can only go by what I know which is not much.

Clemens Maria, I will share those links from Griff with you privately if you have not already read them (if this is okay).

I give my word that I will no longer post on the topic apart from asking questions. I have seen how feeneyites operate here and I don't want to be known as one with an agenda other than to learn.

I lack much in the theological realm, most notably, knowledge. :) I am not here to teach but to learn.

John Lane I apologize for posting the theory. I don't want to lose my privilege of posting here.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
John Lane wrote:
Please, people, this is perfect for Cathinfo, where it doesn't matter what you think or post!

For you, Maria Looch, from the Rules:
Quote:
If you can find the time to post your opinions and beliefs, then you can use the same time to find the evidence. If like most people your time is severely limited, then please reorganise your limited time so that if you can't post multiple opinions or beliefs plus evidence, then stick to one opinion or belief and its evidence until you have the available time to offer more.

The alternatives to this policy are two. One possibility is that the Bellarmine Forums becomes a free publishing platform for whatever impiety, theological error, or nonsense that any member feels like posting. The second possibility is that the moderators allow a free-for-all and fulfill their responsibilities to God and man by spending huge amounts of time finding sources to contradict errors, and even more time writing refutations of bad arguments. The first possibility is fundamentally opposed to Christian doctrine and right reason; the second is unfair and stupid (and still opposed to Christian doctrine anyway).



I just re-read this. I only have one opinion on this with no evidence but Griff's articles and youtube on Van Noort. My official opinion as that I am not sure about anything on this topic. It is over my head. Obviously I'd like to see it settled. But the message is clear. I have no agenda. I just posted what made most sense to me on the issue so far. I'm done. See you on another thread. My sincere apologies again Mr. Lane. I'm going to read the rules of conduct now.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
There's no big problem, just that this really is wild stuff and can be ventilated where people are into wild stuff. There are many trad forums and they are pretty much free-for-alls, so there's no need to get into that style of thing here. What we encourage is that people read the theologians and then post things based upon them. Not entire mongraphs, just thoughts, conclusions, whatever. Griff has his own means of publishing his theories anyway, so again, he doesn't need the Bellarmine Forums.

Now, in relation to the notion that sacramental bishops are Successors of the Apostles, that's just totally untenable. The Church's teaching on this is clear - the Successors of the Apostles are those who have a mission from the Church. That's not what our bishops have. They confect the sacrament of Penance by virtue of jurisdiction which is supplied for each act - that is, for every single absolution, just as our priests do. They have no habitual jurisdiction and never have had. They were never sent by the authority of the Catholic Church and they don't generally claim to have been. They have been consecrated to the fulness of the priesthood for sacramental reasons, not to rule any portion fo Christ's flock. Indeed, every single one of them began by acknowledging this explicity. It was only after getting used to wearing purple socks and being chauffered around the place that one or two of them have gotten this idea that they might be Princes of the Church. They're not.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
John Lane wrote:
There's no big problem, just that this really is wild stuff and can be ventilated where people are into wild stuff. There are many trad forums and they are pretty much free-for-alls, so there's no need to get into that style of thing here. What we encourage is that people read the theologians and then post things based upon them. Not entire mongraphs, just thoughts, conclusions, whatever. Griff has his own means of publishing his theories anyway, so again, he doesn't need the Bellarmine Forums.

Now, in relation to the notion that sacramental bishops are Successors of the Apostles, that's just totally untenable. The Church's teaching on this is clear - the Successors of the Apostles are those who have a mission from the Church. That's not what our bishops have. They confect the sacrament of Penance by virtue of jurisdiction which is supplied for each act - that is, for every single absolution, just as our priests do. They have no habitual jurisdiction and never have had. They were never sent by the authority of the Catholic Church and they don't generally claim to have been. They have been consecrated to the fulness of the priesthood for sacramental reasons, not to rule any portion fo Christ's flock. Indeed, every single one of them began by acknowledging this explicity. It was only after getting used to wearing purple socks and being chauffered around the place that one or two of them have gotten this idea that they might be Princes of the Church. They're not.


Thank you John.

Just to be clear as can be in stating my objection (or asking my question - I do not pretend to know the answer):

Objection. Bishops consecrated during past interregnums were Successors to the Apostles, therefore those consecrated during this interregnum are or could be.

On the contrary, "???".

I answer that, "???".

And to be clear do you maintain that the Dolan, Sandborn and other Bishops can't be true simply because of the fewness of number or for some other reason?

Quote:
The Church's teaching on this is clear - the Successors of the Apostles are those who have a mission from the Church. That's not what our bishops have. They confect the sacrament of Penance by virtue of jurisdiction which is supplied for each act - that is, for every single absolution, just as our priests do. They have no habitual jurisdiction and never have had. They were never sent by the authority of the Catholic Church and they don't generally claim to have been. They have been consecrated to the fulness of the priesthood for sacramental reasons, not to rule any portion fo Christ's flock.


That is what I am trying to understand for the bishops consecrated during past interregnums and now. I certainly agree that they must have a mission and be sent as the bishops consecrated during past interregnums were.

If you are correct in your opinion then Griff does need Bellarmine Forums. He is one who will grant a legitimate point in a debate. He just wants the truth. He would love to be legitimately proven wrong on this issue if such is possible. If you can prove him wrong he would admit it I am sure. He is very level headed, no feeneyite, SV, knows the Papal Mandate is necessary, agrees with you on the "una cum" issue, agrees that the SSPX is part of the Church, etc.

Also, I would much prefer a perhaps slightly too rigid forum than a definitely way too lax forum like Cathinfo. The Feeneyites run rampant there. It is chaos. This forum is head and shoulders above that one. There is no comparison. Kudos John for running a tight, orthodox, and sound ship.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:11 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Maria Looch wrote:
Objection. Bishops consecrated during past interregnums were Successors to the Apostles, therefore those consecrated during this interregnum are or could be.


María, I think you are mixing two different things.

First of all: Bishops consecrated during past interregnum were not successors of the Apostles because of the consecration but because of the canonical mission.

Second: those Bishops (consecrated or not, it doesn´t matter) received jurisdiction during an interregnum because the one who gave it to him had the authority to do so, such as an Archbishop, a Patriarch, etc.

That the power of jurisdiction doesn´t come immediately from God and therefore from the sacrament of Orders is theologically certain, as Fenton shows it, quoting a couple of documents of Pius XII.

Take, for instance this of Fenton:

Quote:
Here is another important item on which the <Mystici Corporis Christi> issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this document, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff."[9] In the edition of his <Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici> which came out after the issuance of the <Mystici Corporis Christi>, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted
as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.


See here http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PXIITREA.TXT

The contrary was taught by Vatican II.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Thanks Cristian. Of course, at least arguably, the other means by which true episcopal jurisdiction was transmitted from the Roman Pontiff was by the accession of a man to an existing see. All sees were established by the Roman Pontiff and by definition they have ordinary jurisdiction attached to them permanently. So when a man becomes bishop of Wherever during an interregnum, he has ordinary jurisdiction by the tacit approval of the Roman Pontiff.

Maria, I don't want to talk about Griff any further, but he was (or is, I can't recall) a member of the forum and he stopped posting because he doesn't put a point as you have with your syllogistic structure then debate it, he writes screeds without proofs and doesn't even realise what he is doing. In a word, he has ahead full of theories already and he doesn't know where they came from, but he thinks they are Catholic.

He's a lovely bloke and I'm sure he means well, but we can't help him, and he can't help us.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
John Lane wrote:
Thanks Cristian. Of course, at least arguably, the other means by which true episcopal jurisdiction was transmitted from the Roman Pontiff was by the accession of a man to an existing see. All sees were established by the Roman Pontiff and by definition they have ordinary jurisdiction attached to them permanently. So when a man becomes bishop of Wherever during an interregnum, he has ordinary jurisdiction by the tacit approval of the Roman Pontiff.


How does one legitmately accede to an existing see (assuming of course that it is currently vacant)? There is a fellow on CathInfo who is adamant that no one can accede to a vacant see without an explicit papal mandate (Pope Pius XII apparently codified an already existing practice). This fellow concedes that it is possible for the Pope to grant authority to a bishop to make episcopal appointments but he does not concede that it could ever be possible for a man to obtain an episcopal see without either the explicit approval of the Pope or the explicit approval of a bishop who has the explicit authority (from the Pope) to make such an appointment. Any claim not backed by such explicit approval he would consider to be an usurpation. I don't think he is the only one who holds that position. But it sounds like you are not in agreement with that position. This problem touches on the problem of papal elections as well since there are some folks (on CathInfo and ArchbishopLefebvreForums) who hold that only the Cardinals, or if there are no Cardinals only the Roman Clergy or possibly only the Successors of the Apostles (maybe only those from suburbican sees) can be legitmate electors of a Pope. With all these sometimes conflicting positions it often seems as though there is human speaking absolutely no way for the Catholic clergy to restore the Church. I find that hard to believe. There must be a way to fix this mess. There must be a way because Our Lord is awaiting the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that can't happen without a Pope. In fact, Our Lord said that the consecration will take place but it will be late. Maybe it is late because we haven't figured out how to elect a Catholic Pope yet.


Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Quote:
There must be a way because Our Lord is awaiting the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that can't happen without a Pope. In fact, Our Lord said that the consecration will take place but it will be late. Maybe it is late because we haven't figured out how to elect a Catholic Pope yet.


Be careful. This should be started in another thread so as not to derail this one. Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia in the 1950's I believe. The Fatima-pope argument is a common argument used by the R&R against sedevacantism led by "Father" Gruner.


Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Have alook at the threads from this google search: first tonsure site:http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
I think some of what you're looking for is in this topic:

Claiming Jurisdiction


Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:10 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
Yes, that's good, but have a look at the search for "first tonsure" via Google Advanced Search (use the string I posted above in the standard Google search box) and browse some other threads. The point is to see that the true clergy of any diocese are those who are Catholics clerics - i.e. men who have received first tonsure in that diocese and have retained the faith. We know without possibility of error that such men exist in Rome, especially, because the local Church of Rome is indefectible. Every other diocese could fail, but Rome will always remain faithful.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: SSPX is the True Church
John Lane wrote:
Caminus, I think his unclear ideas about jurisdiction contribute to this unclear notion of Apostolicity. See Page 4 ff. of this article for an example: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... _Popes.pdf

I agree that it's rash to take his words as excluding non-SSPX people from the Church, but it isn't rash to understand him as excluding other traditional bishops from this Apostolicity that he claims. After all, it is based upon the "mission" from Archbishop Lefebvre, which the others simply don't have.


I know Silver City, New Mexico "Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery" has repeatedly said the same thing.

The SSPX really does believe that +Lefebvre has a Divine mission and all those who don't participate in this endeavour are essentially lacking special graces, that only come through this.

You can especially see this more clearly, when +Williamson split with the SSPX, when you ask them and the conferences which I have heard and also from the first hand experience I know. They truly believe that +Lefebvre was a prophet from God, that is to guide the remnant Church until the end of the world with everything with respect to the Crisis. Now I know that +Lefebvre would abhor this idea, but nevertheless they see it this way.

I know there are some private revelations some older ladies have shown me, that "prove" without a doubt that this is true. The one I am thinking in particular is a special exorcism case where it involved 7 priest, and the devil confessed that are many things in the N.O. that were his work. But notice how the devil, tends to be almost a conservative not truly denouncing the real roots of the problem. Reminds me very much of the Palmar de Troya "Lady" who spoke like a "traditional" Catholic. Well the phrase that is used in the book was this, "Econe will triumph." She was not sure at the time what Econe was, but then later as she started learning more about tradition. She connected the dots, and ever since she has said that, "no matter what" she will stick to the SSPX. This particular lady, is extremely well read and one of the most erudite I have spoken to. It really is sad how sometimes little things like that can stump, otherwise very intelligent individuals. She has however, expressed that she understands of why I became a Sedevacantist and she still considers us Catholics. Especially post Bergoglio, its funny to me, but everyone refers to it "the temptation." I get images of the apple and fruit of "knowledge", so does that mean we have special knowledge that our sp'ist brothers do not? :lol:

I will leave that conundrum for all of you to solve. :P

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:07 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.