Alex

@Banana3Stocks @Sunsoulsurfer Think well crawl back up and end up around even tomorrow

@JMJCircello Your language is very telling.

I’m going to be nicer to those hostile to the SSPX. It isn’t their fault they’re dumb.

@JohnTraddington @MarkTezak I was mostly responding to mark. He was mocking your post by pretending to agree with it.

@Alex63996767 @MarkTezak Not sure I would go that far. I don't share their conclusions, but most sedes I know are earnestly trying to live as Catholics, and if what they believe is incorrect, it is just an error, not something malicious or evil.

Sedevacantists have it so easy. They insist on an exaggerated and slavish obedience to the Pope, but then declare that there is no Pope, so the only obedience they end up owing to anyone is to themselves.

@MarkTezak @JohnTraddington Including you

@JohnTraddington @Alex63996767 They are very Pharisaical any way you slice it. Most of the ones on line are quite nasty

@MarkTezak @JohnTraddington Or one could say satanic

@JohnTraddington Very Protestant

@Hot_tejki @visegrad24 Unreasonable to avoid ww3?

@visegrad24 Why would trump give up taiwan like that? It seems unreasonable

Trump on Taiwan: “The Chinese just don’t want to see this place — we’ll call it a place, because nobody knows how to define it — but they don’t want to see it go independent. I’d like to see everybody making chips in Taiwan come over to us in America. I’m not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, are we supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war? I’m not looking for that. When you look at the odds, China is a very, very powerful and big country. That’s a very small island. Think of it; it’s 59 miles away. We’re 9,500 miles away. That’s a little bit of a difficult problem. If you look at the history, Taiwan was developed because we had presidents that didn’t know what the hell they were doing. They stole our chip industry” 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇹🇼

@FreeIrishman7 That is fine as long as im a practicing catholic. Cant say the same for the sspx

You’re not traditional nor conservative if you attend the Novus Ordo.

@AFpost More accurate to say that they would rather die than submit to the vicar of christ. Who does that remind you of.

SSPX Superior General Don Davide Pagliarani said members of the SSPX would “rather die than renounce” their Catholic faith, as planned episcopal consecrations are set to move forward without a papal mandate. Follow: @AFpost

@CatholicPebble The pharisees werent in the wrong primarily because they didnt care about the salvation of sinners. You twist scripture to suit your own sinful attitude.

This is a really bad statement. There are several issues with it. Let's break it down. Point 1: Father says: " I’m amazed at how many of you want Bishop Barron to take the third step with Dave Rubin before he takes the first two." Firstly, this is a very vague statement. What are these steps? Who established them? Why should they be taken? Secondly, bishop Barron had alredy met Rubin long before this particular video. If I understand father's implications well, the bishop had already taken the first two steps, perhaps even more. Additionally, he didn't bump into Dave on the street - they prepared for this episode. Point 2: Father goes on to say: "none of you seem aware of the pattern of Jesus calls for individuals to repent. He established a relationship and he went from there." Again, we have a very vague statement here. What is this pattern we are talking about? What does "establish a relationship" mean? Is there a right or wrong way to establish a relationship? I guess this ties into the previous sentence about taking 2 steps before taking the third; however, once again, the steps are not explained. Secondly, "established a relationship" appears to imply a passage of time. Meanwhile, Our Lord never left a conversation without calling the person He spoke to to repentance. He didn't need several preparatory or Introductory conversations with the sinner in question (which bishop Barron already had with Dave before this latest video). Point 3: "It was the self-righteous Religious who chastise Jesus for eating with sinners. How do we miss this?" We don't miss this. Those who chastised Jesus did not care that He called sinners to repentance. They did not care about the salvation of sinners. They simply didn't want to be around them. To imply, as father clearly does here, that those of us who called bishop Barron out (for not warning Dave about his sin) are similar to Pharisees is both horrible and wrong. Nobody said bishops can't be around sinners. We said bishops can't leave them in their sin without telling them to go and sin no more. Point 4: "he told them that the sick need a doctor. Not those who are well." Yes, and we are calling the doctor (bishop Barron) to finally start with the treatment for the deadly disease Dave's soul is suffering from. Nobody said the bishop needed to yell at Dave. Point 5: "I would invite each of us to work at the skill at being horrified by our own sin and fixating on that. That’s how Saints get made. Not by running around worrying about everyone else’s." The first part of this statement is correct. We should all be more horrified by our sins, myself included. However, the last statement in this post is manipulative. It implies that if you are worried about a prominent public Catholic bishop avoiding discussing sin with a baby trafficking sodomite, you are "running around worrying about everyone else". Not fixating on others' sins does not mean we get to play blind and fail to call a public sinner to repentance. Admonishing a sinner is a spiritual work of mercy and it does not mean we are "running around" gleefully trying to uncover hidden flaws in people, as this entire post implies. Point 6: While bishop Barron is taking his time and "taking the first two steps before taking the third", two little children are growing motherless, raised by two sodomites. They are in dire need of a normal family and yet, we have priests telling us that we are impatient and that we need to take admonishing the sinner slow. Dave's soul needs help now but Dave at least has his free will. The little children he purchased cannot exercise their free will. They are forced to live with him and his "husband". Where is your empathy for them? Where is the sense of urgency for the motherless? Where is the sense of disgust for this ungodly arrangement? Do we not know what Our Lord said about those who scandalize the little ones? I am tired of sentimental, vague posts that rely on implications. Additionally, these empathetic sentiments always flow towards the guilty and "scandalizers". Meanwhile, the scandalized are called Pharisees and the innocent (children in this case) are utterly ignored while we are told to take a million steps before simply telling someone to stop sinning.

@Mary_is_Queen Lol you immediately have no credibility since youre under the authority of the pope and refuse to acknowledge it.

An unmarried woman who is not a nun is under the authority of her father no matter her age

@MurrayRundus Youre a snake. Exactly like the serpent convincing eve to disobey god.

And truthfully, both are wrong. The Pope has spoken ex cathedra much more than two times and exercised the Magisterium’s infallibility much more than that! But he is not *always* infallible and therefore can theoretically be disobeyed when he was acting fallibly.

“The Pope is infallible only in strict conditions, really it’s only been done two times in history!” And “You can never disobey the Pope even if it meant he said something that denies prior Church teaching, he is always right” Are *contradictory statements*

@MoxyMurphy @_CatholicWest He didnt go there to preserve the lives of christians. He went there to convert the sultan and the muslims through peaceful dialogue. He himself desired martyrdom. You wouldve easily called out st francis for legitimizing a christian murderer for what he did.

I am not wrong. You are conflating the issue. Dialogue with the Muslim Sultan is commendable, and pragmatic, and even necessary to preserve the lives of Christians—and Muslims—under Sultan rule & avoid the consequence of war & every sin and abomination that comes with it. Public Dialogue with a public sodomite and abductor of children, on a topic about temporal political power, and having no recognizable benefit to the common good, is little more than personal aggrandizement under the guise of false ecumenism.

I've slept on it and I think we've got it wrong. Bp Barron isn't out to boost gay people or marriage by interviewing this guy. Rather, he's so committed to his anti-leftism bit that he's willing to interview a gay Jewish man who has children by surrogacy.

@FrStephenImb Sspx are just “pious” modernists

How is it not a form of modernism to think you can still consider yourself Catholic while rejecting Popes, the VCII, and the OF Mass? How is “recognize and resist” and sedevacantism not a form of modernism? Recognizing schismatic Vigano as somehow legitimate is not a form of modernism?

@CullumSmith Literally the whole post is about justifying schism and disobedience to the pope. No different than the protestants.

Why does the SSPX need to consecrate bishops? It's a reasonable question. After all, none of the other traddy groups have their own bishops, and they seem to get along just fine. 1. The mission of the SSPX is to preserve the traditional Catholic priesthood, including formation, discipline, philosophy, and pastoral practice. Archbishop Lefebvre sold this mission to Paul VI as the "experiment of tradition." During a time when it seemed anything could (and would) be changed, why not keep a little side chapel in the Church of the New Advent for the old stuff? Now, the preservation of the priesthood obviously requires the ability to ordain priests, and to do this requires a bishop. Unfortunately, the SSPX continues to be Church's loudest critic of Vatican II — the council that somehow changed both nothing and everything at the same time, and by which the Church now seeks to define herself. Consequently, the SSPX is the third rail of the entire conciliar milieu. Archbishop Lefebvre was forbidden to ordain priests in 1976, but continued doing so. No conciliar bishop in his right mind is stepping up to ordain SSPX priests today. Could you imagine the headlines? The FSSP and similar groups rely on TLM-friendly prelates like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz to confer priestly ordination, but these men are known to denounce the SSPX publicly. The only outsider who might even consider ordaining SSPX priests is Bishop Schneider. And since everyone must "return in due time" to the Novus Ordo according to Traditionis Custodes, there is presently very little reason to think that Rome would even allow such ordinations to take place. So, if the SSPX is to continue to exist, they will need bishops to continue ordaining priests from their ever-growing classes of seminarians. 2. The SSPX has hundreds of thousands of lay faithful requiring the Sacrament of Confirmation. Because SSPX bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction, they cannot delegate the task of Confirmation to SSPX priests. (Of course, any priest can administer Confirmation to someone in danger of death.) The SSPX has only two aging bishops, but hundreds of chapels across six continents. A huge portion of their bishops' time is spent traveling the world and slapping kids with Sacred Chrism. You might argue that those people could receive Confirmation from just about anyone else. Why do they need the SSPX to do it? Well, for whatever reason, those people have chosen the SSPX for their spiritual home — and the faculties granted by Rome in recent years have not exactly discouraged them from doing that. If you think it's easy to call up a random parish and schedule Confirmation, I encourage you to give it a try! 3. There are very few bishops remaining who were consecrated in the Old Rite. The bishops currently providing ordination to the FSSP/ICKSP/etc were consecrated using the Novus Ordo formula, and in the context of the Novus Ordo Mass. I'm not here to argue about validity of the Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations — but there's obvious value for a group like the SSPX to maintain continuity with the traditional episcopal rites for the bishops that serve them. So, what now? In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to guarantee continuity of the traditional priesthood. Of the four original bishops, two have recently gone to their eternal reward. The remaining two are approaching their 70s. Since the original excommunications, the SSPX has steadily grown — thanks in part to the Society's quasi-regularization by Rome over the years. Now, they have 5 seminaries, 94 Catholic schools, 798 Mass locations, 733 priests, 264 seminarians, 395 religious brothers and sisters, and hundreds of thousands of lay faithful that depend on them for traditional sacraments. And after witnessing the Francis pontificate and the death of half their bishops, the man to decide their fate within the structures of the Church is...Cardinal Tucho Fernandez. Given the current state of the Church, accepting a future without SSPX bishops is tantamount to informing all their priests and faithful that "it's over." Do I wish they had tried harder to negotiate this time? Yes. Do I have any reason to believe that the end result would be any different? No. And if you think the situation is less dire now than it was in 1988, you may want to do some research on the Overton Window.

@MoxyMurphy @_CatholicWest Youre wrong. St francis of assisi was famous for not going the route of the crusades during his time. He chose dialogue with the sultan, who was muslim. Because of that the franciscans had a good reputation there for many years.

Granting the interview under the guise of civil discourse is assent to Rubin’s choices. Seconds, Barron is captive to Americanism, and does not seem to know the proper role of the Catholic religion. Why would he subordinate his teaching authority to a fictitious “right vs left” polemic?

@MurrayRundus Sspx are all modernists at heart. Disobedience is at the heart of their movement. Modern day pharisees and brood of vipers.

And people will have the gall to respond "Erm, two wrongs don't make a right🤓" completely missing the point that *this is what the SSPX is talking about*

A reminder that less than a month ago the Catholic Bishop of Fresno openly partook in an invalid Anglican consecration of a bishop, no penalties were imposed, no comments were made, no investigation done. And y'all are still complaining about the SSPX

@st93633 @MurrayRundus The fact that he thought obedience to the pope was an insult shows you the their true nature.

@MurrayRundus Isn’t that just giving good religious submission?

If tomorrow the Pope said “Ah well, SSPX, you guys are all good. Here’s a canonical status” There are many Catholics on this app who would be making TikTok edits of Bishop Fellay the next day despite condemning them as the worst heretics and schismatics the day before

@MurrayRundus Yeah because thats what obedience to the pope entails. We follow his decisions, which is something you obviously dont get.

@SteveEverett4 @allenanalysis I agree with you on the issue of muslims but you need to show more respect to the pope.

@allenanalysis Pope Leo needs to stay in his lane. I’m Catholic and if he wants to get involved, then he should focus on all the Christians and Clergy who have been massacred by Muslim terrorists!

🚨 Pope Leo XIV just declared the Iran War unjust. Called it a war crime. Said it is “not solving anything.” Then told Americans directly: call Congress. End this war. The same Pope Trump called weak on crime. The same Pope Trump fabricated a nuclear quote from. The same Pope whose brother received a bomb threat after Trump attacked him. The same Pope Speaker Johnson lectured on theology. 1.4 billion Catholics heard their leader call this war a crime.

@Joeinblack There is a reason jesus was much harsher on the pharisees than the tax collectors and prostitutes. We have many modern day pharisees, mostly lay people, thinking they can do a better job.

I’m amazed at how many of you want Bishop Barron to take the third step with Dave Rubin before he takes the first two. I see many of you talking about how Jesus “told sinners to repent” but none of you seem aware of the pattern of Jesus calls for individuals to repent. He established a relationship and he went from there. It was the self-righteous Religious who chastise Jesus for eating with sinners. How do we miss this? Jesus didn’t then respond to their criticism by standing up and yelling at them to repent; he told them that the sick need a doctor. Not those who are well. I would invite each of us to work at the skill at being horrified by our own sin and fixating on that. That’s how Saints get made. Not by running around worrying about everyone else’s.