AnarThlic

@AuditeInsulae How it’s structurally built. You cannot make the experiential the governing framework. Fr Pagliarani is speaking metaphysically—the highest level—which does not deny experiential possibilities.

@AuditeInsulae Fr Pagliarani is right. Keyword it “ensure”—because metaphysically, the NO is highly defective. You are talking about real experience—which can make it possible for someone to still remain Catholic. But metaphysically, as the structure of the NO is—that is not

Head of the SSPX Fr Pagliarani said “...in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation." He says those at 'ordinary' parishes are not Catholics. How is this compatible with real experience? Two of my children praying the Rosary before N.O. Mass today

And I would liken the intellectual direction to the occasion of sin. Why even do it? Why place the intellect in such a high risk mode/ frame?

become the fundamental and underlying , governing principle and philosophy. Once this is done, the direction is equivocation upon equivocation, and a certain density, where the probability of confusion, subjectivism, and relativism is almost practically inevitable.

Relativism has many other names, especially when they are utilized and invoked as governing principles/ philosophically, which they have been since the Second Vatican Council—especially by Jacques Maritain, Karol Wojtyla, and by both the Consilium and Communio—phenomenology,

@matthew_sede I mean... she's got photos and was received as a "bishop" by the pope. What can top that?

Wait, is this an authentic Vatican account? Not that I would be surprised or anything, just seeing if authenticity can be confirmed.

@PopePiusIXStan The SSPX has already delayed. We can argue, even 1988 was already delayed--because to this day, the Vatican hasn't addressed any of the metaphysical arguments--at all.

Pope Leo XIV wasn’t going to meet with someone who wasn’t going to submit to his authority and decision. If you’re going to consecrate with or without a mandate, why meet? If they want to meet with the Holy Father, the SSPX needs to delay the consecrations.

@EMichaelJones1 Mr Jones, you are quite out of control.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Bishop Fellay tells the SSPX they are going to Hell unz.com/ejones/extra-e…

@CullumSmith @katharia/note/p-196198193?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=k5zmc" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@katharia/note…

@CullumSmith @katharia/note/c-251904664?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=k5zmc" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@katharia/note…

Dr. Kwasniewski is correct. At some point, the SSPX (and similar groups) must be re-integrated into the normal structures of the Church, and this seems increasingly hopeless as time goes on. However... The first mark of the Church — her Oneness — is threefold: manifested in her Unity of Faith, Sacraments, and Governance. The SSPX contends that Vatican 2 introduced errors contrary to the faith, and sacraments that, while valid, do not fully express the Catholic religion. This confusion, they claim, is not the result of a misguided "spirit" of Vatican 2, but of magisterial orientations that have been "received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes" through documents like Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes. For Rome's part, they have not done much to dispel this claim in recent years. In short, the Lefebrvrists are holding out for the Unity of Faith before they worry about the details of Governance. In contrast, we have the Ecclesia Dei groups. Now, the Ecclesia Dei Commission does not actually exist anymore, but the name seems to have stuck. These are the diocesan TLMs, the FSSP, the ICKSP — the "full communion" clergy and faithful whom I affectionately call the dio-trads. Virtually none of these folks give real assent to developments like Traditionis Custodes, Amoris Laetitia, or Mater Populi Fidelis. They typically avoid the Novus Ordo at all costs, but do so under the guise of sincere liturgical attachments or a desire for greater reverence. Unfortunately, the price of Full Communion™ is their silence (at least in the public forum) on the obvious cause of all the doctrinal confusion which has rocked the Church since the 1960s. Don't get me wrong — I know many holy priests who do heroic work within the diocesan structures — but there are certain topics they simply cannot touch from the pulpit if they want to continue shepherding their flocks. In order to secure the ability to operate "behind enemy lines," we might say the dio-trads have instead prioritized Unity of Governance over Unity of Faith. Finally, there is on last manifestation of the Church's Oneness which I have not touched on: the Unity of Sacraments. It seems to me that BOTH camps have reduced this mark to a paltry "Well, the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid." Whether you come right out and say the New Mass is harmful (as the SSPX does) or just silently rearrange your entire sacramental life to avoid it (like the dio-trads), your actions pretty much tell the same story. In conclusion, it's just not obvious to me that the dio-trad strategy is any superior to that of the Lefebvrists. Post-TC, the tradeoffs of each are now painfully obvious, and the stage is set. We can now only watch and pray: "And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God."

I'll be there in spirit.

@21WIRE Gnostic

Whatever happened to Jordan Peterson?

@EsquireCatholic @BigModernism @EMichaelJones1 I actually don’t like his books—he cites himself, and makes many claims he doesn’t substantiate; presents opinion as fact. His books would not pass an academic peer review.

I like EMJ's books. I really do. But @EMichaelJones1 suffers from TDR (Trad Derangement Syndrome) due the years he wasted trying to justify and explain away Vatican II's Nosta Aetate. It's humbling when one sees others free from the slavery of mental gymnastics needed to do so.

@EMichaelJones1 Your are misrepresenting what Don Pagliarani said. Not cool.

Are Jews calling the shots at the SSPX? According to the SSPX, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church Christ founded: according to SSPX spokesman Father Pagliarani “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.” Extra SSPX nulla salus. “The problem with this framing — indeed with the SSPX’s conception of dialogue,” writes The Pillar’s Ed Condon, 'is that it tries to pitch the society as both a true expression and member of the Catholic communion under the authority of the pope and, at the same time, when necessary, autonomous, and a kind of legitimate interpreter of doctrine apart from the Holy See." Father Pagliarani is correct though when he says: "In the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church." Charity toward souls demands that the Church draw a clear line between those in the Church and those outside her, because there is no salvation outside of the Church. That means the faithful should leave the SSPX immediately lest they be damned. The Pillar continues: “In that situation, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani has come under repeated fire. Surely — the argument has been made by supporters of the society — if the pope had a real concern for avoiding a canonical act of schism by the SSPX leadership, he would want to press his plea for restraint in person? “But a different assessment of the situation might conclude that, in fact, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani is an act of mercy — and an ultimate expression of the pope’s hope that reconciliation might still be possible. … “According to John Paul, ‘this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience — which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act.’ “As to the idea of a meeting between Pope Leo and Pagliarani, the priest has already made it clear, in writing to Cardinal Fernandez, the SSPX cannot and will not accept that the Vatican’s position that ‘the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged,’ and thus ‘we cannot find agreement on doctrine.’ “In fact, the division is so acute that Pagliarani has affirmed in a recent interview that he believes it is a ‘fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.’ … “It is because, according to Pagliarani, the means of salvation are not available in normal parishes that the SSPX must continue. And the SSPX cannot continue its self-ascribed ministry unless it has priests, which it cannot continue to ordain unless it has bishops to ordain them. “QED, because the Church’s ordinary ministry is salvifically ineffective, the society is justified in whatever means it chooses to continue its work. To concede ground on any of the points would be to undermine the entire rationale of the SSPX’s current self-articulation.” pillarcatholic.com/p/why-leo-wont…

@swinkwizycja @shiningsweu I agree it was there. But VII was their coming out party.

@AnarThlic @shiningsweu If the vast majority of bishops accepted Vatican II, the crisis must have been already there. V2 is the result, not the cause. It only unleashed the evil which was already inside. Perhaps God let it be, so that all could see how deep the rot goes. Ignore V2's self-contradictions.

An exchange for the excommunication of the SSPX? It’s a typical devilish move: the lavender mafia knows that the SSPX is the bastion of Catholic doctrine, and without it, there is no true Catholic faithfulness; people will be lost in the middle of the confusion currently sowed by devilish forces. EXCLUSIVE: Pope Leo biographer says pontiff still weighing Latin Mass decision - LifeSite lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive…

@swinkwizycja @shiningsweu If you study why and how any of the traditional groups even exist—you will see the SSPX is the bastion of tradition. They’re the only ones who officially question Vatican II—the crux of the crisis.

@shiningsweu I'm not against the SSPX, but it's not the only bastion of orthodoxy, don't be ridiculous. All the old Magisterium belongs to the whole Church, all old fathers, writings, catechisms, and so on. SSPX can be called a bastion of old liturgy and priestly formation, and that's all.

@NovusOrdoWatch Managerial and Cartesian analysis, as expected.

A Novus Ordo canonist opines: Why Leo won’t meet the SSPX - pillarcatholic.com/p/why-leo-wont…

@Catholicizm1 And Vatican II.

The American Revolution was a trial run for the French Revolution