Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[Scipio_a]

I did provide evidence BECAUSE YOU PROVIDED IT...I even linked and quoted you....you are a pathetic heretic...who hates Catholic tradition..You are here to attempt to sow confusion..everyone knows it...so you will not be effective since everyone that comes here will see every post you make countered as has been the case...every time you post three of four people dismantle you (NO attendees and trads alike...that's choice)...and yet you persist...so I will persist and continue to let everyone know you are a heretic who worships the Pope and pretends to be Catholic and a trad...you are neither...you are a liar and calumniator   You wish above all else...as is apparent from your continued attacks on tradition...that you wish tradition had not survived.  But as pointed out on the new SSPX talks thread....you lost


We have seen your kind before and we have dealt with many more skillful that you.   If guys of the skill set had by Fr. R.J. Neuhaus got owned by trads   it should come as no surprise to you that you get owned on EVERY one of you posts...post which contain so much hate for a man who loved so much   Sad  but that's were you are....


All of your "arguments" have been answered here...and trashed multiple times....get used to it....'cause that's the way it's gonna stay.   

I

[Baskerville]

Perhaps the SSPX should stop recruiting satanists

Ummm... will somebody please tell me what the heck is going on here. What is pissinontrads on about. Scip, Dk Somebody whats this about SSPX satanists??

[Scipio_a]

Peter Vere...Petrolltron's hero, was a Satanist who "converted"   found his way to tradition...found his way to the SSPX for 3 years he claims and is now an anti-SSPX mouthoff.

Of course he was never actually recruited, he found them....it's just another one of the troll's ploys to shift the game.

And yes...despite the troll's and another's claim that I did not prove he spouted heresy...I did, by linking to his very own words


In all honesty it would be interesting to know why he really left the SSPX chapels...I wonder if someone called him out on something and he's been on a vendetta ever since....at least that seems plausible to me

[Baskerville]

Peter Vere...Petrolltron's hero, was a Satanist who "converted"   found his way to tradition...found his way to the SSPX for 3 years he claims and is now an anti-SSPX mouthoff.

Of course he was never actually recruited, he found them....it's just another one of the troll's ploys to shift the game.

And yes...despite the troll's and another's claim that I did not prove he spouted heresy...I did, by linking to his very own words


In all honesty it would be interesting to know why he really left the SSPX chapels...I wonder if someone called him out on something and he's been on a vendetta ever since....at least that seems plausible to me

Gotcha I knew it was some kind of troll droppings but I was just curious.

[Benno]

It's good to see that anti-and-pro-sspx threads ae as passionate and useless as always. They're just a bunch of people, for God's sake. Unfortunately, some people think they're a cult and some people think they're the chosen few. They're just a bunch of people, with little idea of what binds them apart from saying "there's nothng wrong with what we're doing, and it's right!" 

[petrelton]

It's good to see that anti-and-pro-sspx threads ae as passionate and useless as always. They're just a bunch of people, for God's sake. Unfortunately, some people think they're a cult and some people think they're the chosen few. They're just a bunch of people, with little idea of what binds them apart from saying "there's nothng wrong with what we're doing, and it's right!" 

True, they are a bunch of people. You have no argument from me there.
Presbyterians are a bunch of people also who think they are doing right.
Scientologists are a bunch of people as well.

Profound stuff Benno. You have produced an irrefutable argument. I challenge anybody here to deny that SSPX are a bunch of people. I may have many negative things to say about the SSPX but I have never denied that they are people. If I hear any of you fisheaters here accusing the SSPX of not being people I will put scipio onto you and he will accuse you of heresy.

[petrelton]

Peter Vere...Petrolltron's hero, was a Satanist who "converted"   found his way to tradition...found his way to the SSPX for 3 years he claims and is now an anti-SSPX mouthoff.

Of course he was never actually recruited, he found them....it's just another one of the troll's ploys to shift the game.

And yes...despite the troll's and another's claim that I did not prove he spouted heresy...I did, by linking to his very own words

Sorry I meant "proselytised" not recruited. We know that the SSPX is a proselytising church.
Also scipio. You did link to my words but provided no explanation as to how they were heretical.
I read over them again and am baffled how even the most bent out of shape person could construe them to be heretical.
I just think in your mind that you think of heresy as being anything that you don't personally agree with.

Which dogma of the church did I deny? How did I deny it?
Please detract your baseless allegation against me of heresy.

[Nic]

Peter Vere...Petrolltron's hero, was a Satanist who "converted"   found his way to tradition...found his way to the SSPX for 3 years he claims and is now an anti-SSPX mouthoff.

Of course he was never actually recruited, he found them....it's just another one of the troll's ploys to shift the game.

And yes...despite the troll's and another's claim that I did not prove he spouted heresy...I did, by linking to his very own words

Sorry I meant "proselytised" not recruited. We know that the SSPX is a proselytising church.
Also scipio. You did link to my words but provided no explanation as to how they were heretical.
I read over them again and am baffled how even the most bent out of shape person could construe them to be heretical.
I just think in your mind that you think of heresy as being anything that you don't personally agree with.

Which dogma of the church did I deny? How did I deny it?
Please detract your baseless allegation against me of heresy.

You just called the SSPX a "church," is that not a slander made against them?  And a proselytizing church (you probably don't know the meaning of the word unil you go to Wiktionary and find out).  The Catholic Church, which the SSPX is at the heart of, IS A PROSELYTIZING CHURCH!!!  IT is only in the post-conciliar revolution that we are encouraged NOT to proselytize the nations as Christ commanded.

Petrelton, when will you finally see that the Church was as it was for 1,900 + years, and then suddenly, AN ABRUPT CHANGE.  So many things in the religion changed in a matter of only a few years that it would take WAY too long to post here (try reading Iota Unum for starters, a dense, scholarly volume of the changes in the Catholic Church).  The SSPX and we Trads only do what the Church had done for centuries - we worship the same and believe the same.  How are we wrong for that?  The SSPX is without a doubt a core of the remnant left in the modern Church.  They are only doing what is absolutely necessary to ensure that our sons and daughters have priests to say Mass, and don't have to call Martin Luther a saint or whatever horrid things the liberals want to do to our religion.  What caused this abrupt change in our religion.  At the EXACT time of the change, a "Church council" was underway.  This "council" has been under fire since it was released, for its ambiguity, error and undying consent to the modern world.  The Church has NEVER faced a crisis of such magnitude.  This shows the cleverness of Satan, whose masterstroke was to cause disobedience to Tradition through obedience (false, blind obedience).  There is an agenda at work here, one which is at the heart of modern, Masonic Rome.  The holy places have been tainted by the "smoke of Satan," which has reached to the summit of the Church.  For years Catholic mystics and prophets have commented on such times, and we are in the midst of them now.  We hear the Blessed Virgin speaking of such things at La Salette, Nikita, Fatima etc. - and yet the modern Catholic is so vain in his thought that the modern world is exempt from such treachery, that he remains complacent in a Church that no longer functions as it ought.  It is time to wake up and smell the roses, Petrelton - and quit making excuses for these dark times.  The modern world is not to blame - it is not an evil world that made the Church the way it is, that is not how it works.  The Church is the focal point of the earth, of the universe, for it is Christ's Kingdom on Earth.  What happens to the Church, happens to the world, NOT vice versa.  The Church lost herself, and the world followed suit morally.  When did the moral fiber of the world begin to crumble.  We see the 1950's as a time of "old-fashioned" values - then we see the last half of the 1960's as a time of REVOLUTION.  When was the Second Vatican Council? - 1962-1965.  Do the math, Petrelton.  There was an ABRUPT change here, and it occurred only moments after the council convened.  The Church was one thing - and now it is being changed into another.  Traditionalists, namely the SSPX, are only doing what is necessary in a time of moral decadence and consent to an evil world.  If his Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre had not done what he had done, then you would not see the FSSP, or the ICK, or any other Trad group not associated with sedevacantism.  Praise God for Archbishop Lefebvre and what he HAD to do to ensure us of our birthright - our right to the religion of our Fathers.  God Bless.

[petrelton]

Peter Vere...Petrolltron's hero, was a Satanist who "converted"   found his way to tradition...found his way to the SSPX for 3 years he claims and is now an anti-SSPX mouthoff.

Of course he was never actually recruited, he found them....it's just another one of the troll's ploys to shift the game.

And yes...despite the troll's and another's claim that I did not prove he spouted heresy...I did, by linking to his very own words

Sorry I meant "proselytised" not recruited. We know that the SSPX is a proselytising church.
Also scipio. You did link to my words but provided no explanation as to how they were heretical.
I read over them again and am baffled how even the most bent out of shape person could construe them to be heretical.
I just think in your mind that you think of heresy as being anything that you don't personally agree with.

Which dogma of the church did I deny? How did I deny it?
Please detract your baseless allegation against me of heresy.

You just called the SSPX a "church," is that not a slander made against them?

My apology. What I meant to say is that the SSPX is a "christian community" and "not a church in the proper sense". Sorry.
Not sure I would class my error as slander though. Don't you want to be considered a church?

[Vetus Ordo]

Don't you want to be considered a church?

Do you think you're funny? Your irony is disgusting. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is a pia unio of the Roman Catholic Church since the 1970's. It was never legally suppressed, its priests are faithful roman catholic priests and its bishops are true shepherds of souls trying to keep the flame of Tradition alive amidst this horrible crisis that has befallen the Church. It's not a separate church nor it ever intended to be. Your innuendo is silly and offensive.

If you think you were going to come here and teach us all the "truth" about the crisis in the Church, about how Msgr. Lefebvre was a schismatic by constantly bashing his memory and the Priestly Society he founded, then you're deadly wrong. You need to reassess your priorities, calm down and take a new look at things. As many posters before me have pointed out, you have failed to consider the full extent of the crisis, its direct and indirect causes and the correct approach to have when dealing with it. True and false obedience do exist, whether you like it or not.

[Scipio_a]

Prottytron...I did explain...and used your words.


The best part about this is that there is a real chance that prottytron attends a "church" with a simulated Mass since with the three elements argument there is a real chance his priest is not...LOL

[Meg]

I'd like to post part of a lecture that I've transcribed from a talk that Fr. Gregory Hesse gave about six years ago. Fr. Hesse was ordained in St. Peter's Basillica, in 1981, I believe. He has a doctorate in canon law, and Thomistic theology. this excerpt mostly addresses how the sensus fidelium of Catholics throughout history has helped them to reject heresies as promulgated by three popes. At the end Fr. Hesse talks about the obedience/schism issue regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, and how Pope John Paul ll gave a wrong definition of obedience. Some of his talks are available from CFN:

http://www.cfnews.org/FrHesse.htm

Lord Petrollton, with his cult-leader-wanna-be-like personality, won't understand any of it, so it's not for him, but for those who need a bit of ammo to use to defend orthodoxy.
--------------------
True Doctrine, by Fr. Gregory Hesse:

"Three times before in history there are magnificent examples on how the sensus fidelium - the real grasp of tradition - saved the Church. The first time was under the heretical pope, Pope Liberius. That was in the fourth century, when Pope Liberius fell for the Arian Heresy, that said that Christ Our Lord was not Divine. A pope, mind you, until Liberius, are (were) all canonized. Liberius was the first who was not canonized. But St. Athanasius, who fought the pope and disobeyed the pope publically like Archbishop Lefebvre did - St. Athanasius was canonized. And who saved the Church at the time? The pope didn't. The bishops didn't. As usual, the bishops had other problems and went with the pope into heresy. The people saved it. The simple faithful, who rejected the new heresy.

The second example is with Pope Honorius. Pope Honorius believed that Christ had only one will. That's not true, of course, because otherwise he would be either not God, or not man. Christ was fully God, and fully man, and still is, so he has His Divine Will - a person without a will is not a person, it's not even an animal - and He had His will as a human being. So there were two wills in Christ. otherwise, how would it be possible that Christ was obedient? If He could not submit His human will to the Divine Will, He could not be obedient. But, Pope Honorius lll said, "I don't believe that."  So, the people went mad against him. That was the old days. To show you how the old days in Rome were, in the year 595, my patron saint, St. Gregory the Great, dared to add a few words to the Roman Canon of the Mass. At the moment  when the priest says, "hang igitur," he put in the words, "That You may dispose our days in Your peace."
The people of Rome almost killed him! They said, "How dare you touch the Canon! What's the matter with you!?"
Imagine how the people of Rome in those days would have reacted to the New Order of the Mass? Ha! Paul Vl - zup! He would not have survived it.

This is the sensus fidelium. Now, Pope Honorius was a heretic, and the people said, "come on, we don't buy that!"

-----------------------------------

I'll put the second part in another post, since it's a bit long for one post.

[Meg]

True Doctrine, by Fr. Gregory Hesse, part two:

"The third example: in 1332, Pope John XXlll said that the souls of the faithful cannot have the beautific vision before the Last Judgement, and he said that the souls of the damned will not go to Hell before the Last Judgement. That's a heresy. But he said it, and you know what, he wrote that down. He preached it, and he wrote it. And when his writings were read to the most reverend professors at the University of Paris, those professors got up and left, and said, "We don't want to hear that. That's garbage." And when the people heard about it, they just went like that. They thought they had a granola bar pope, and they had. As nutty as a fruitcake, until the day of his death when he took back that horrible heresy. Only the last day of his life he took back that horrible heresy. But the people never accepted it. Oh, some wise-guys did, as usual, and some theologians, of course, but generally, the people didn't. You see, this is the sensus fidelium. We had three heretical popes in history - all three times it was the simple people who saved the ship.

And with this sensus fidelium, at the same time, I give you a sermon because I appeal to your sensus fidelium. Don't let any of your vain-glorious opinions keep you from the sensus fidelium. You will never lose the sensus fidelium as long as in your heart and your mind you agree automatically with what the Church taught before 1958. In the old days, the people knew, instinctively knew, in their sensus fidelium, that they would not have the right to accept heresies, even if they were coming from a pope. I think you know the following quotation: "But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." - St. Paul.

So we don't have an angel giving us new doctrine which we have to reject, but we have a pope who does so. See, this is another reason why I said we do not have the right to judge a person, because how do we know why John Paul became the way he is? He didn't have a good seminary. He wasn't lucky as I was to have the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas on his bookshelf. He was taught, long before he decided to become a priest, he was taught some very evil doctrine by the theatre group that was founded by a certain Helena Blavatsky of the Anthroposophists. That's a very, very evil and satanic spirit. We can't judge the man, but we can judge the pope. And as far as his papal pronouncements are concerned, I've given you a vivid example of what can happen if a pope ignores the basic doctrines of philosophy which is the doctrine of act and potency in St. Thomas Aquinas which I have explained before."

---------------------------------

Part three will go in another post.

[Meg]

True Doctrine, by Fr. Gregory Hesse, part three:

"And to come back for the last few minutes of this speech to the ducument Ecclesia Dei, the pope says, in number 4, he gives a wrong definition of tradition. In number 3 he says...."Such disobedience,"  means Archbishop Lefebvre ignoring what the pope commanded, "Such disobedience which implies in practice the rejection of Roman Primacy."  That's a lie! If I, for some reason, do not obey my superior, that doesn't mean at the same time I deny his authority to give commands. If I'm a colonel in the U.S. Army and the general tells me to kill my wife, I'm going to say, "No, sir; I'm not going to do that, sir." But I am not going to deny that he is a general and my superior. That's rubbish.

So, the pope's just simply erroneous when he says, "Such disobedience implies a rejection of the primate."  It doesn't! It never has! And it never has been considered such. By circumstances, it might come out to the same, under certain circunstances. But not principally. And the pope says, "Such disobedience." He cannot say that. Such disobedience can never be schism, a rejection of the Papal Primacy."

-----------------------------

[petrelton]

I'd like to post part of a lecture that I've transcribed from a talk that Fr. Gregory Hesse gave about six years ago. Fr. Hesse was ordained in St. Peter's Basillica, in 1981, I believe. He has a doctorate in canon law, and Thomistic theology. this excerpt mostly addresses how the sensus fidelium of Catholics throughout history has helped them to reject heresies as promulgated by three popes. At the end Fr. Hesse talks about the obedience/schism issue regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, and how Pope John Paul ll gave a wrong definition of obedience. Some of his talks are available from CFN:

http://www.cfnews.org/FrHesse.htm

Lord Petrollton, with his cult-leader-wanna-be-like personality, won't understand any of it, so it's not for him, but for those who need a bit of ammo to use to defend orthodoxy.
--------------------
True Doctrine, by Fr. Gregory Hesse:

"Three times before in history there are magnificent examples on how the sensus fidelium - the real grasp of tradition - saved the Church. The first time was under the heretical pope, Pope Liberius

I have rejected Fr Hesse on the basis of this comment here and will read no further. We have already seen on this forum how people love to label the ones they are disobeying as being heretics. If someone is a heretic then you do not need to obey them. Therefore you decide for yourself that they are heretics so that you are justified in disobeying them.
Pope Liberius was not a heretic. He may have been weak in not supporting Athanasius. He may have been intimidated and weakened by his period in exile. He might have been a sinner in his personal life but he was NOT a heretic. He never sanctioned the Arian heresy even if he may have not withstood the teachers of Arianism staunchly enough. I am not going to judge a Pope, particularly not across the vast centuries.
However I will happily rely on St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor the church who stated.
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus."
What the saint is saying here is the Liberius defected for a period of time from his role as Pope but that this sin did not include the graver sin of heresy.
Who did you say Fr Hesse was again? I know who St. Robert Bellarmine is. I will side with him thanks very much. And if Fr Hesse is prepared to reject a Pope of the church simply in order to justify his own actions over 1500 years later then I will happily reject Fr. Hesse and urge all others to do likewise.
I know that Fr. Hesse was a canon lawyer and was a very intelligent and learned man so I have to wonder how he could possibly make such a flat our rejection and denial of Pope Liberius. He surely must have investigated the charges against Pope Liberius and found that it was not a simple cut and dry case of abject heresy. Yet despite this he has flat out stated that Pope Liberius was a heretic. Why would he do that?  It seems to me that the only reason he would do that is that he was a man of bad will and who was prepared to disparage a Pope in order to support his personal agenda whatever that was.

Therefore when we encounter an individual or his writings which are obviously the product of a bad will then we must reject it. I advise all readers of fisheaters to not read a single word past where he states that Pope Liberius was a heretic. Strike off from your reading list anything by Fr. Hesse and ignore his arguments as they are likely to contain poison against the church and the faith.