Doubts about SSPX

RonaldB

Pigeon
Allow me to recommend two online books by the late sedevacantist author Rama P. Coomaraswamy :

First and foremost, his famous debate with Mother Teresa on the New Mass & New Church at http://web.archive.org/web/20060518...catholic-writings.com/MotherTheresa-PartI.htm

and his book on the New sacrements at http://web.archive.org/web/20060516...araswamy-catholic-writings.com/sacraments.htm

Those texts won't teach you everything, but whatever your position is you'll come out with a clearer understanding of what happened at Vatican II.
Thanks man. I really appreciate it.
 
God gave me my intellectual ability precisely to allow me to understand the mysteries of Faith in a deeper manner. Not all humans are provided with that gift, however.
No, I don't believe that at all, not even a fraction of a second. God does not give us any "gifts". The translation of "talent" in Matthew is rather new, Luther still translated it centner. God did not give me my horrible ugly and paining body and mind, my hunched back and mental illness. Worse, some suffer from being tied to a wheelchair basically since birth, like Fredrick Brennan, whose views on eugenics might have softened after he became a Christian, but he is still in favor of voluntary genetic screening.

I certainly will not pass my horribly crappy genetics onto some other poor soul and am longing for the day I die. I have basically always hated the world except when I was a little child and the few weeks, maybe months after I was born-again aged 30 (I hanged myself at 23 for a reason).
I know suicide is most likely a grave sin, but Roosh's views on it are almost as shallow as Chesterton's. Chesterton, after all, was a very fat man. Not that I am without sin, but I find it distasteful to simply ignore the mental suffering that is often the result of suicide. And being a Christian does not at all answer questions like "why do I suffer so much?" or "what's the point of my existence?". We see through a glass darkly, and I know I am simply the result of ugly, wicked lust. Roosh could have had hundreds of children by now. This is neither rocket science, nor praiseworthy. Andy Nowicki seems to be the only one who is just as appalled by the way he got here that I am (apart from thinkers already dead, like Schopenhauer and Weininger, and of course the always readable Kierkegaard.)

What is important that you do something and don't limit yourself to autistic intellectualism. We live in an age where intellectualism is overvalued and action is underappreciated.
I disagree completely. Not that anyone cares. But I came to Christ by following Vox Day for a year or so reading his blog, later viewing some of his Darkstreams on Periscope. No matter if one likes Vox Day or not -- I can't stand his views on marriage. sexuality and life being a "gift", which is not biblical --, he is a reader and I found his viewpoints often challenging and interesting enough to keep reading him. This then led me to take Christianity seriously, leading to my "road to Damascus" experience.

I think that this is only true superficially: it is a sad truth that while in Germany, many more people than in other countries read books, more and more choose not to. This was different in the past. At best, people sling around terms read on the net without knowing much about them, but I don't really see people reading high or serious literature, instead they waste their time, often with horrible consequences, like having children out of wedlock who have to suffer through a horrible life, with horrible genetics, because their parents did not care.

I will also add that Christ Himself says we should read, and He rebukes the Pharisees and others testing Him with, e.g., "have you not read that it was said"; Paul, in Acts, speaks favorably of a group of Jews who earnestly searched the Scriptures to see if Christ really is the Messiah and so on.

I don't buy that peasants have the deepest faith. There migh be faithful peasants, but as Hans F. K. Guenther showed in his "Bauernglaube", many peasants actually did not feel much connection to Christ, instead their view of God was more centered on the Father. I think those who devoted their life to Christ, like many monks, nuns and priest most likely were deeply faithful -- not all, for reasons to join a monastery differed in the past. Though John Henry Newman apparently prayed to God to renew the flame of his faith, as I have read somewhere.

We have, after all, records, even writings of some of them. I was impressed by the last monk they showed here, living in the woods of Moldavia:

Hermits of our times - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqEDhKKPl-o Late '90s recordings on our times desert dwellers.
 
Last edited:

FactusIRX

Robin
No, I don't believe that at all, not even a fraction of a second. God does not give us any "gifts". The translation of "talent" in Matthew is rather new, Luther still translated it centner. God did not give me my horrible ugly and paining body and mind, my hunched back and mental illness. Worse, some suffer from being tied to a wheelchair basically since birth, like Fredrick Brennan, whose views on eugenics might have softened after he became a Christian, but he is still in favor of voluntary genetic screening.

I certainly will not pass my horribly crappy genetics onto some other poor soul and am longing for the day I die. I have basically always hated the world except when I was a little child and the few weeks, maybe months after I was born-again aged 30 (I hanged myself at 23 for a reason).
I know suicide is most likely a grave sin, but Roosh's views on it are almost as shallow as Chesterton's. Chesterton, after all, was a very fat man. Not that I am without sin, but I find it distasteful to simply ignore the mental suffering that is often the result of suicide. And being a Christian does not at all answer questions like "why do I suffer so much?" or "what's the point of my existence?". We see through a glass darkly, and I know I am simply the result of ugly, wicked lust. Roosh could have had hundreds of children by now. This is neither rocket science, nor praiseworthy. Andy Nowicki seems to be the only one who is just as appalled by the way he got here that I am (apart from thinkers already dead, like Schopenhauer and Weininger, and of course the always readable Kierkegaard.)
I'm sorry to hear that you have had such a tough life. Hopefully you have been able to find some peace in your life.
 

BadWhite

Newbie
I am not sure where to post this, so I'll post it here.

I watched Roosh's stream with Jay Dyer, and then I started watching other Jay Dyer videos on theology.

I have been having doubts about the SSPX Catholic Church I recently started attending (and about Catholicism in general) due to the Vatican II issue.

Novus Ordo Catholicism doesn't appeal to me for obvious reasons, and sedevacantism doesn't make sense because if there is no pope, then there will soon be no bishops or priests either (only the pope can consecrate bishops, and only bishops can ordain priests). This would mean that under sedevacantism, the Church (or at least the clergy) eventually ceases to exist, which would mean that the Church failed. That goes against the Christian teaching that the Church cannot fail.

That leaves trad groups like SSPX as the only valid option. However, I cannot get behind the idea that Vatican II was valid but simply had "errors" (what SSPX teaches). I do not believe the Vatican II people were acting in good faith and simply made mistakes. It is clear to me that Vatican II was a deliberate act of subversion meant to co-opt the church and make it subservient to modernism and globohomo.

I don't think I'll stop attending my church just yet. It has done a lot of good for me, and I like the people there. But I have doubts about the whole thing.

Jay Dyer recommends Orthodox Christianity, and he makes some very good points. I am not nearly as well-versed in theology as he is, but the stuff he says makes sense to me for the most part.

Also, the reason I chose a trad Catholic church over an Orthodox one is that I am half Italian and my mom was baptized Catholic as a child. On the other hand, I am not Russian or Greek, and I thought that maybe an Orthodox church full of ethnic Russians or Greeks would not be so welcoming towards an outsider with no ties to Orthodox Christianity. I am now questioning whether or not this was a good enough reason to choose Catholicism.

I hate having to learn about the politics behind all this stuff. I really just want to find a good church that preserves true (i.e. original) Christianity and Christian teachings.
On the contrary, sedevacantism makes absolutely perfect sense! The SSPX's recognize-and-resist ("R&R") position IS an implicit denial of the Church's doctrine of indefectibility. "As far as the accusation that Sedevacantism would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which Christ our Lord promised would never happen (see Mt 16:18), nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true: Only if the Vatican II “popes” are invalid can we affirm that the gates of hell have not prevailed." (credit: NovusOrdoWatch FAQs)

Traditional Roman Catholicism IS the one true faith, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Sedevacantism is the correct position. The gates of Hell have NOT prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church and they never will...Eastern "Orthodoxy" IS not, and COULD not possibly be the one true religion. (see Why Eastern Orthodoxy is Not the True Religion) There is no "Orthodox Church" but a loose collection of nationalistic sects many of which are not even in communion with one another (the two largest "Orthodox" churches--the Russian & Greek churches--are currently in schism with one another). The True Church must bear the four marks of Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity and the "Orthodox" church does not fit that criteria, being neither ONE nor CATHOLIC...Eastern "Orthodoxy" is a member of the satanic "World Council of Churches", and enjoys warm and friendly ecumenical relations with the false Novus Ordo religion of antipope Francis...this alone prove it is NOT the one true Church of Christ. For if Eastern "Orthodoxy" had an ounce of holiness in it, you would not see the antipopes of Vatican II attempting to reconcile with it in the manner in which they go about it!

Let's be honest, no one would convert to Eastern Orthodoxy or even give it a passing moment's notice if they didn't think that Vatican II & the current crisis didn't cause one to doubt and wonder if maybe Catholicism was "false" all along...because pre-Vatican II Catholicism was obviously THE one true Church (DUH!) and this was apparent even to most non-Catholics. And it begs the question, why just consider Eastern Orthodoxy? Why not Oriental "Orthodoxy", i.e. the non-Chalcedonian churches which includes the Coptic church and the Armenian church which Roosh belongs to--which while they might all appear to be "the same thing" to an untrained Westerner, is in fact an entirely separate communion from the "Eastern" (Greek, Russian, etc.) "Orthodox", from an earlier schism....For that matter, why not consider the Church of the East (Nestorian)? All of which are Eastern churches independently claiming to be the one true orthodox Church of Christ to the exclusion of all others--But what was OBVIOUSLY true (Catholicism) BEFORE the Vatican II crisis is STILL true now. Catholicism is the truth. The "recognize-and-resist" error of the SSPX is dangerous, illogical, and an implicit denial of Catholic doctrine.--THIS is what's causing you to doubt your Catholic faith and be led astray by the arrogant, immoral volcano of sophistry otherwise known as Jay Dyer. (TBH I've never understood his appeal). Sedevacantism not only is perfectly compatible with what the Catholic Church has always taught (in fact, it's a fulfillment of MANY prophecies), it is in fact the only possible theological conclusion one can make as a traditional Roman Catholic.

I was in your shoes not all that long ago and seriously considering Eastern "Orthodoxy"; believe me when I say it's a FALSE solution.
Don't leave the one true faith. Research sedevacantism and STAY CATHOLIC.
You might start here:
Sedevacantism in 3 Minutes:

Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part I:

The Novus Ordo Watch blog https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/ is an excellent resource!
Start here: https://novusordowatch.org/faqs/

"Now What? How to Be A Real Catholic Today"

And especially the late, great Fr. Anthony Cekada's (RIP) blog and Youtube videos (also here and here)
You CAN'T go wrong w/ Fr. Cekada! (R.I.P. He died just a couple weeks ago)

Here's a partial list of traditional Mass locations; see also this directory of Mass centers operated by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI). Perhaps there's one in your neck of the woods?

In the meantime, I do earnestly hope you'll do some research and look at the links I've given you.
And PRAY THE ROSARY!!!:)
You will be in my prayers!

God bless.
 

BadWhite

Newbie
EMJ's historical material is certainly excellent to understand what happened in the American Catholic world, but it would be too much of a stretch and too American-centric to apply his explanation to the whole, international Catholic world.
Right...Exactly right. Seeing EMJ referenced in a discussion on Vatican II is so *cringe*...
(The definitive book on this subject of Vatican II and the changes is Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century by Professor Romano Amerio, an Italian).... It's worth noting that E. Michael Jones is virtually unknown in traditional Catholic circles (really!). And wouldn't be taken seriously if he were known. I mean, sure, his basic message is OK, usually, when he sticks to his own particular area or expertise, and he's great for his target audience (Millenial/Gen Z males w/ secular, "pop culture" backgrounds) I only wish more of them would graduate from EMJ and move onto better things (like Fr. Denis Fahey for instance), delve into the source of things instead of what they glean third-hand from blogs & forums...
 

BadWhite

Newbie
Novus Ordo Catholicism doesn't appeal to me for obvious reasons, and sedevacantism doesn't make sense because if there is no pope, then there will soon be no bishops or priests either (only the pope can consecrate bishops, and only bishops can ordain priests). This would mean that under sedevacantism, the Church (or at least the clergy) eventually ceases to exist, which would mean that the Church failed. That goes against the Christian teaching that the Church cannot fail.
P.S. That is totally incorrect ("only the pope can consecrate bishops"). Sounds like you're confusing validity and liceity. Bishops can consecrate bishops...surprised you, as an SSPXer, wouldn't know this distinction already, given the SSPX's history....
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
The definitive book on this subject of Vatican II and the changes is Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century by Professor Romano Amerio, an Italian
I wouldn't call it or any other book "definitive" on Vatican II - nothing will be "definitive" until the evil of Vatican II will be obvious to the average Catholic ; the opposite is true as of now, when Catholics deceived by the Novus Ordo sect are the overwhelming majority.
On the other hand, Amerio is perhaps, among the Catholic people with academic credentials that can be safely quoted anywhere, the one that goes deepest into the criticism and understanding of Vatican II.


It's worth noting that E. Michael Jones is virtually unknown in traditional Catholic circles (really!). And wouldn't be taken seriously if he were known.
And yet, EMJ has published two books containing a lot of historical ammunition for RadTrads, if only they were aware of it : I mean his book on Cardinal Krol and David Wemhoff's book on John Courtney Murray.

EMJ himself recoils from what's shown by the evidence he has gathered. For example, he often claims in his interviews that "Cardinal Ottaviani himself asked for Vatican II, and could therefore not be opposed to it". What EMJ forgets to mention is that, in a sort of revolutionary "coup", all the initial schemas for discussion (which had taken three years to be written) were thrown out in the first session, making the council take an entirely new direction, and that Ottaviani was clearly an unwelcome opponent from that moment in the council.

For some time, I've been dreaming of an interview of EMJ by a combative RadTrad host who would make him come closer to the traditionalist position. One day, maybe ...
 

BadWhite

Newbie
I wouldn't call it or any other book "definitive" on Vatican II - nothing will be "definitive" until the evil of Vatican II will be obvious to the average Catholic ; the opposite is true as of now, when Catholics deceived by the Novus Ordo sect are the overwhelming majority.
On the other hand, Amerio is perhaps, among the Catholic people with academic credentials that can be safely quoted anywhere, the one that goes deepest into the criticism and understanding of Vatican II.




And yet, EMJ has published two books containing a lot of historical ammunition for RadTrads, if only they were aware of it : I mean his book on Cardinal Krol and David Wemhoff's book on John Courtney Murray.

EMJ himself recoils from what's shown by the evidence he has gathered. For example, he often claims in his interviews that "Cardinal Ottaviani himself asked for Vatican II, and could therefore not be opposed to it". What EMJ forgets to mention is that, in a sort of revolutionary "coup", all the initial schemas for discussion (which had taken three years to be written) were thrown out in the first session, making the council take an entirely new direction, and that Ottaviani was clearly an unwelcome opponent from that moment in the council.

For some time, I've been dreaming of an interview of EMJ by a combative RadTrad host who would make him come closer to the traditionalist position. One day, maybe ...
Is E. Michael Jones even a "semi-Trad"? My impression is that he's a hapless "Novus Ordo conservative"...pretty scandalous that he talks about THE Catholic Church as if the counterfeit Novus Ordo Sect is it, utterly confusing his fanboys. There's also a scandalous interview of him with some leftist "Catholic" pacifist group (Catholics Against War? Catholics for Pacifism? something like that...) where he's lamenting about the fact that 1/3 or 1/2 (something like that, lol) of the U.S. Military are "Catholics" and whining that "the bishops" need to be speaking up more about this..as if this is 1950 something, as if the Novus Ordo "bishops" have any moral authority w/ the Novus Ordo unfaithful. Pathetic!

I did appreciate the part of his Jewish Revolutionary Spririt where he exposes the charlatan Malachi Martin. :like:
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
Rob Banks said :
"Novus Ordo Catholicism doesn't appeal to me for obvious reasons, and sedevacantism doesn't make sense because if there is no pope, then there will soon be no bishops or priests either (only the pope can consecrate bishops, and only bishops can ordain priests). This would mean that under sedevacantism, the Church (or at least the clergy) eventually ceases to exist, which would mean that the Church failed. That goes against the Christian teaching that the Church cannot fail."

That is totally incorrect ("only the pope can consecrate bishops").

It is indeed true that a bishop can consecrate bishops, but he can do it licitly only with the Pope's approval (or, in a few exceptional cases, with the Pope's presumed approval, if there is an urgent need and the bishop cannot communicate with the Pope, or if the identity of the true Pope is not clear at the moment, etc).

Liceity is indeed the crucial, all-important factor here. Validity of the rites is debatable and can be reasonably presumed for most competing traditionalist Catholic groups (and even Orthodox groups), it is only liceity that clearly allows one to rule out most groups (in fact, ALL well-known groups to my knowledge, which is why I am a so-called home-aloner).

You are correct that this rules out the SSPX's uncatholic and schismatic "recognize & resist" position, but the other groups are hardly any better, sadly. They can be divided into two main categories : they either believe in the Cassiacum thesis (that the Pope is "material not formal", half a pope so to speak, so they're not really sedevacantists, even though they like to call themselves that), or they follow Thuc-line bishops ; those love to show beautiful-looking, long bishop lines going back to the Apostle Peter to show how perfectly orthodox they are. What they do not tell you is that Thuc never consistently professed any doctrine, let alone sedevacantism ; he only made his sedevacantist "Munich manifesto" once because Heller and Hiller asked and paid him for it, and soon after that asked to be forgiven by Paul VI, and celebrated a Novus Ordo Mass to show his good will.

Not the mention the many scandals regarding faith or morals to be found in those groups, just like in the Novus Ordo sect.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
pretty scandalous that he talks about THE Catholic Church as if the counterfeit Novus Ordo Sect is it, utterly confusing his fanboys
Yep. This is epitomized by this passage in some interview (I think it was the one with Vendée Radio) :

Host, to EMJ : You tell people to go get baptized and join the Catholic Church, and this is good. But you don't warn them that in most parishes, they will encounter weird doctrines and habits that aren't catholic at all, and that's bad.

EMJ (a little awkward and embarassed) : Well, you know ... I always tell them to give me a call if something goes wrong ...
 

BadWhite

Newbie
It still amazes me that those Catholics who are scandalized by the SSPX are apparently OK with the reign of the pagan worshipping Communist and probably closeted homosexual Jorge the Humble.

Abp. Lefebvre is called a schismatic by a bunch of heretics.
Who are you referring to?
I'm scandalized that the SSPX professes to be in communion with and recognizes as "Pope" the pagan worshipping Communist and probably closeted homosexual Jorge the Humble, hangs his portrait in the vestibules of their chapels, and sacrilegiously offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco" ("...together with Thy servant, Francis our Pope...")
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
For some time, I've been dreaming of an interview of EMJ by a combative RadTrad host who would make him come closer to the traditionalist position. One day, maybe ...
Check EMJ thread. I posted a solid interview with him and a Trad 1-2 months ago. It did feel like EMJ short circuited at one point when the discussion went to JP2. It's worth a watch.

Regarding EMJ in general, to me he is a great Catholic. I do think someone can maintain their faith in these Churches, and not fully understand the complexity of the Vatican 2 situation. Myself I know that I felt like I was in a new Church when I begun to attend an FSSP parish over a year ago. Now I am in a different location and trying to pick up with an SSPX parish.

I have struggled with understanding Vatican 2 fallout, ultimately, my intuition is that over emphasizing it in your spiritual life can cause lots of confusion. I have seen people swing from Novus Ordo (V2 fallout was bad but the document functions) to the FSSP position (pastoral teaching only), to SSPX position (recognize and resist), to Sede V position (anti popes). All make their cases but somehow I find trying to sort through it all to be very difficult and while at times you feel you have your finger on the issue, it can be spiritually distracting.

I was thinking the other day that if only the Catholic Church had a Pope today like St. Pius X, I we could all be united again. There are many disillusioned Protestants who seem open to Catholicism. It doesn't seem like the Novus Ordo is bearing much fruit, so God will perhaps cut that tree down or somehow bring them back into alignment with the Traditional Constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

I count all as Catholics, perhaps for those who have clarity and understanding of these issues they will be judged. If EMJ does his prayers and his sacraments, attends Church it's not for us to accuse him. Myself too, I feel exempt in a way from the constant discussion in that I have more basic spiritual issues to sort out such as maintaining devotions, getting back to confession, old sins that seem to come back into my life.
 

BadWhite

Newbie
they follow Thuc-line bishops ; those love to show beautiful-looking, long bishop lines going back to the Apostle Peter to show how perfectly orthodox they are. What they do not tell you is that Thuc never consistently professed any doctrine, let alone sedevacantism ; he only made his sedevacantist "Munich manifesto" once because Heller and Hiller asked and paid him for it, and soon after that asked to be forgiven by Paul VI, and celebrated a Novus Ordo Mass to show his good will.
Not the mention the many scandals regarding faith or morals to be found in those groups, just like in the Novus Ordo sect.
They're still valid and Thuc's profession or non-profession of sedevacantism has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.
In the practical order, "material/formal" sedevacantism is sedevacantism.
 
For if Eastern "Orthodoxy" had an ounce of holiness in it, you would not see the antipopes of Vatican II attempting to reconcile with it in the manner in which they go about it!
The Byzantine Rite, including the troparia for post-schism Orthodox saints, has been authorized by the Popes since long before Vatican II. Are you quite certain you know better? Or do you believe the see of Rome has been vacant since Lyons?
 

SlickyBoy

Ostrich
I mean, during Vatican II, the Church came out and formally announced that Jews were not responsible for Jesus's death. I'm not familiar enough with theology to know if it is fair to have contempt for modern-day Jews because of Jesus's death, but the fact that the Vatican felt the need to formally disavow Christians who hold this view is at best very suspicious.
This was one of the worst failures of the foolish experiment of Catholic-Jewish dialogue that went on in the 1960s. Of course Jews were responsible for his death. Were ALL Jews responsible? I don't think the apostles or Mary were responsible, no - but plenty of Jews at the scene screamed for the Romans to spare Barrabus in place of Jesus. That doesn't translate into having contempt for Jews generally, but it does mean you don't let them control the Church or decide who gets to be a Catholic and who doesn't.
 
Right...Exactly right. Seeing EMJ referenced in a discussion on Vatican II is so *cringe*...
(The definitive book on this subject of Vatican II and the changes is Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century by Professor Romano Amerio, an Italian).... It's worth noting that E. Michael Jones is virtually unknown in traditional Catholic circles (really!). And wouldn't be taken seriously if he were known. I mean, sure, his basic message is OK, usually, when he sticks to his own particular area or expertise, and he's great for his target audience (Millenial/Gen Z males w/ secular, "pop culture" backgrounds) I only wish more of them would graduate from EMJ and move onto better things (like Fr. Denis Fahey for instance), delve into the source of things instead of what they glean third-hand from blogs & forums...
I have to jump in and defend EMJ here.

First of all, not one bishop or priest will EVER say the J WORD. JEW. Not one. Heck, most are afraid to even say JEWS killed Christ...They will at best, dance around the obvious and say that secret societies such as Freemasons are what has been causing havoc. While societies such as Freemasons have indeed infiltrated the Church in particular and have contributed to the demise of this country, they are not the end all-be all. The end-all be-all of our societal ills is the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit(Solzhenitsyn famously came to this conclusion himself a few years before his death). EMJ is the only brave soul to really say it how it is, and wake up people from making the "jewish question" an ethnic thing (alt right) to what the true problem is, a religious one.

EMJ also illuminated many to the concept of Logos. He was/is instrumental in bringing people back into the Catholic faith. Obviously his expertise lies in Meta-History, Philosophy and Economics. His knowledge on Theology is not so vast, and to say because of this short-coming that "he shouldn't be taken seriously" is silly. If you are "red-pilled" in the history of Catholicism, you will naturally go towards traditionalism. At least that's how it worked for me when I returned to the Church.

It is also notable to mention that his is much more informational in his books & writings than in his talks online.
 
Top