Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[petrelton]

Were the Apostles supposed to obey the Sanhedrin when they were ordered not to spread the Gospel?  Of course not.

Was St Paul supposed to "obey" St Peter (POPE) and not baptize the gentiles? Or did he resist him to his face?

I'd like to hear your answer to this pissinontrads.

St. Peter never said not to baptise the gentiles. Your grasp of the NT is really poor. Paul spoke up against the incorrect behaviour of Paul who improperly favoured the Jews. What Paul did not was not an act of disobedience. In fact it was Paul who consulted with Peter over the issue of baptising gentiles and deferred to his judgement. You are presenting a standard protestant argument here which they use to oppose the primacy of Peter. Although even the protestants do not make the argument as poorly and inaccurately as you have done here.

Resisting or speaking out against  the inappropriate behaviour of an authority is not the same thing as flagrantly disobeying that authority.

Then explain the line. Resist you too your face. And no my NT knowledge isnt up there with you Protestants all I need is the Mass. The true Mass that ABL fought for.  You talk about being Protestant. That must be it guys. Pissinontrads is a protestant convert who has read too much Scott Hahn but likes smells and bells.

If you are unable to judge the difference between resisting and speaking out against the inappropriate behaviour of authority, as compared to willfully disobeying that authority then clearly you are not competent to judge the church and the recent Popes.

[nsper7]

I'm not sure which gives me the bigger headache:

1) Petrelton's inept attacks against the SSPX which go against what the Church has stated regarding the SSPX
2) DK's drunken rants. DK, lay off the booze before you post, okay?

[petrelton]

I'm not sure which gives me the bigger headache:

1) Petrelton's inept attacks against the SSPX which go against what the Church has stated regarding the SSPX
2) DK's drunken rants. DK, lay off the booze before you post, okay?

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Please show where I have misrepresented the churches stance on the SSPX. Here I will summarise it for you.
1. Not in formal schism
2. Exhibits a schismatic mentality
3. Has invalid confessions and marriages
4. Should not be regularly attended by the faithful lest they absorb the schismatic mentality

[Herr_Mannelig]

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Please show where I have misrepresented the churches stance on the SSPX. Here I will summarise it for you.
1. Not in formal schism
2. Exhibits a schismatic mentality
3. Has invalid confessions and marriages
4. Should not be regularly attended by the faithful lest they absorb the schismatic mentality

Then why are they allowed to celebrate mass on the altars of Rome?

[CatholicThurifer]

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Please show where I have misrepresented the churches stance on the SSPX. Here I will summarise it for you.
1. Not in formal schism
2. Exhibits a schismatic mentality
3. Has invalid confessions and marriages
4. Should not be regularly attended by the faithful lest they absorb the schismatic mentality

Then why are they allowed to celebrate mass on the altars of Rome?

Perhaps they were never lawfully suppressed in the first place. After all, one cannot find a document from 1974-1975 outlining the suppression. It just "happened".

[Baskerville]

I'm not sure which gives me the bigger headache:

1) Petrelton's inept attacks against the SSPX which go against what the Church has stated regarding the SSPX
2) DK's drunken rants. DK, lay off the booze before you post, okay?

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper.

You need to stop saying that we need to take good hard looks at ourselves I am sure we all have and our just fine with our traditional position. You on the other hand have yet to answer why you have such a vendetta against traditional Catholics.

[Scipio_a]

The Petrolltron knows what's up here, he has seem my and others call out of him and he knows everyone else has seen it...and he knows everyone else knows it's true...He lies about having read texts he was asked to read to get a better understanding, he refuses to change or even think about evidence that is presented to him, he has OPENLY advocated heresy (while pointing the finger at others and calling them heretics) and he is nothing more than a ultraNO hack who has decided to pretend to attend a TLM of some sort (or maybe he really goes just to get info) so he can come here in a sorry attempt to sow confusion

The funny thing is...he has no takers.  Nsper shuts the guy down and his repeated response is for the Spur to take a look at himself.  Well, Nsper HAS done some of the reading so is immune to the troll's poison, and so is everyone else.

He claims to have not been welcome on Cath Wankers..LOL...he is the poster child of a Wanker.   Either this or the guys over at cathifo are getting a real laugh pretending to be avid Peter Vere readers...

He has no response to the three elements argument, and he posts long droning anti SSPX diatribes...since he found out he could not smack down on the SSPV and CMRI without inciting sede discussion...and is cunning enough to know that if he kept that up he'd get banned and therefore would be unable to spew his poison.

[petrelton]

I'm not sure which gives me the bigger headache:

1) Petrelton's inept attacks against the SSPX which go against what the Church has stated regarding the SSPX
2) DK's drunken rants. DK, lay off the booze before you post, okay?

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper.

You need to stop saying that we need to take good hard looks at ourselves I am sure we all have and our just fine with our traditional position. You on the other hand have yet to answer why you have such a vendetta against traditional Catholics.

I am a traditional catholic. I attend a TLM which is in good standing with the Pope. I nearly got sucked into the SSPX schismatic mentality and saw how dangerous it was which is why I am warning others. Of course there are always going to be hard line rebels that are not going listen no matter how hard you beat your drum. I don't care about them. I am concerned for the people who are sitting on the fence and are unsure and for the lurkers of this forum who think that traditionalism is basically represented by the SSPX and their schismatic tendancies. So I hope to reassure those people that many traditionalists such as myself (and all those like me who have been driven away from fisheaters by abusers ) are not all rebels but are seeking to work in harmony with the Pope to implement V2 and repair the liturgy from all the liturgical abuse. I am working toward seeing the churches restored after the wreckovations that occurred in the 70's and 80's. Return the altar rails, return latin into the mass, return gregorian chant, return orthodox homilies, return a sense of the sacred to the service, return communion on the tongue, return traditional morals and values to the faithful, return an emphasis to celibacy and vocations as a divine vocation. I can do all that without ditching V2 and the post-conciliar popes because I know that Pope Benedict has these exact same aims.

In fact the schismatic acts and mentality of the SSPX and the obviously schismatic independent catholics is a stain on the traditionalist movement. It has worked against our aims and painted us as dissidents in the minds of many catholics. Most catholics today associate the Latin mass with sedition which is a tragedy when they should be associating the Latin mass with a quiet humble people who are obedient to the Pope. The Latin mass has become like a placard which traditionalists wave at the pope like a protestors placard. And now Fellay is doing the same thing with the rosary turning a humble devotion to our lady into a traditionalist symbol to be shoved under the nose of the Pope and all those modernists NO's.

I'm sick of it. I admit. How tired of the whole thing must the Pope be. Please SSPX stop being lukewarm, neither hot nor cold like the Laodiceans in the book of Revelation. How long will you waver between two opinions? Are you part of the visible church or not? Is the Pope the supreme pontiff or not? Is the Vatican council a council of the church or a robber council? Are you going to sign the protocol for reconciliation or are you going to illicitly ordain more bishops. Which is it? Make up your mind. Please

[Baskerville]

In fact the schismatic acts and mentality of the SSPX and the obviously schismatic independent catholics is a stain on the traditionalist movement.

Without the SSPX there would be no traditional movement.

[Baskerville]

It has worked against our aims and painted us as dissidents in the minds of many catholics. Most catholics today associate the Latin mass with sedition which is a tragedy when they should be associating the Latin mass with a quiet humble people who are obedient to the Pope.

It wouldnt matter because they hate what the traditional Church stands for. They hate Our Lady because their Femnazis they hate the latin Mass because there isnt enough participation. And they hate the Rosary because it is a traditional devotion.

[petrelton]

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Please show where I have misrepresented the churches stance on the SSPX. Here I will summarise it for you.
1. Not in formal schism
2. Exhibits a schismatic mentality
3. Has invalid confessions and marriages
4. Should not be regularly attended by the faithful lest they absorb the schismatic mentality

Then why are they allowed to celebrate mass on the altars of Rome?

SSPX masses are valid and the faithful can fulfill their sunday obligation. Therefore conceivably it would be OK for an SSPX priest to celebrate mass at Rome. However I feel that this is highly doubtful and I would like to see evidence that this occurred. It might have been a private mass on a side altar like an olive branch to the SSPX. But I highly doubt that a public mass at the main altar ever occurred.

[petrelton]

In fact the schismatic acts and mentality of the SSPX and the obviously schismatic independent catholics is a stain on the traditionalist movement.

Without the SSPX there would be no traditional movement.

Maybe so. I support the SSPX up until the consecration of the bishops. In 1974 Lefebvre illegally consecrated priests. All faithful catholics would have left the SSPX at that point. Many of which did. The FFSP being the best examples. Besides the point is erroneus. If it had not been for the reformers we would not have had the Council of Trent and the Tridentine mass. Is that a valid argument?

[Scipio_a]

Man...he just digs deeper and deeper.


No you are not a trad cath...thanks for saying it again though.  You petrolltron...are a heretic who worships the Pope...the Pope, who would tell you not to worship him...

A V2 Pope who plays by the rules of collegiality and so would be even more lenient on the whole rule following thing than a preV2 Pope....that's not irony   but is sure is related


And it would be funny in a Monty Python movie

[Scipio_a]

In fact the schismatic acts and mentality of the SSPX and the obviously schismatic independent catholics is a stain on the traditionalist movement.

Without the SSPX there would be no traditional movement.

Maybe so. I support the SSPX up until the consecration of the bishops. In 1974 Lefebvre illegally consecrated priests. All faithful catholics would have left the SSPX at that point. Many of which did. The FFSP being the best examples. Besides the point is erroneus. If it had not been for the reformers we would not have had the Council of Trent and the Tridentine mass. Is that a valid argument?

No dummy...that would have been the end of Catholicism for all but a few...Any sedevacantists and privantists...and whatever few folks remained with the SSPX


because the FSSP....HAS NO PROVEN TRAD BISHOP TO ORDAIN...= no more real priests...and everyone here knos it...everyone knows the way the vat machine wanted to wipe out the TLM and any vesige of it...what easier way than to make sure no trad priests are really made....if evetone had walked away as you suggest...JP2 could just have said "OK, now Card Mahone will ordin any semenarians...LOL


No thanks

[Benno]

Peteltron, are you sure you're doing what the Pope would want you to do here? You know that some kind of reconciliation or whatever with the sspx was always one of his top priorities as Pope, don't you? I'm a supporter of the sspx because I've seen what's good in them, and I'm also a critic of some aspects because I've seen the bad - and for both reasons I'm really happy that the Pope made the move he did. It's doctrinal discussions and good will that might straighten things out a bit, if people on both sides of the divide would only have some patience and hope. Carping on about all the old canon law crap, disobedience etc isn't going to do anything but cause harm, as it has here. Seriously, what do you think Benedict would do if he read through this thread, give you a medal or tell you to chill out a little and let things run their course for a while? You're spending loads of time and emotion on an internet forum while the Pope is quietly and prayerfully taking one small practical step at a time.