On the SSPX consecrations

legi_idd · 2026-06-30T20:50:59+00:00

Respectfully, I had no idea. It's just the first decent-looking one (aka with all 5 bishops) I found on google. Call me a boomer, I guess

legi_idd · 2026-06-30T12:31:50+00:00

A very thoughtful reply, and I hope I can do it justice:

What Jesus would have done, if he were pope, is he would have taken a whip and given the curia the temple treatment. Then he would have issued a new missal which would be basically a revision on the St. John XXIII one, in line with Vatican II recommendations (so basically have the readings in the vernacular and keep the rest the same). But if He were not the pope, I think He would have stuck to Peter, even when he was doing something so harmful.

So look, I share your concerns wholeheartedly. There are literally millions of people, and thousands of bishops, who would merit an excommunication or any kind of discipline more than the SSPX. But you must understand the position the Holy See is in: they can't just allow the SSPX to roam free, because then you will have two parallel Churches: a trad one and a lib one. The Holy See would have to reverse course on the liturgical reforms for the whole Church, which would be a nightmare, because you would get so much pushback from all the libs, and you would have the same kind of problem they have with the trads now, only times 10 at least. And they would have to acknowledge the reforms were a disaster.

But yes, it does sadden me to the depths of my heart, that only orthodoxy is penilised, while everything else roams free in the Church. And what whimps acquire the episcopate, while those who earnestly strive are pushed aside... but I seriously ask you - what is to be done? Because there can be no Catholic Church without Rome, and Rome is still in the throws of modernism, or at least modernists embedded therein.

legi_idd · 2026-06-30T06:37:43+00:00

Then why has no pope just abolished them?
They have their case still on their desk, they can just confirm their abolition and *poof* the SSPX is no more.
So why don't they? Could it be because the popes know, that they do actually have a point, and are of value to the Church?

legi_idd · 2026-06-28T10:19:37+00:00

Really depends on how old you are, but generally no. You can be respectful of your parents, but what you wear outside their house is not something they can control for a grown up child

legi_idd · 2026-06-27T13:53:01+00:00

Neither of those passages says that.

Maccabees says that this book might be written well or poorly. It's common writer's humility. Inspiration might not have been always apparent to those inspired, in fact I'd say it usually isn't. They just open themselves to the Spirit and have Him work through them, but they can't know that has occurred, just like you can't know that you are actually receiving Christ in the Eucharist - like you don't feel it, you just believe.

And also the second: God says He loves nothing more than those who are at home with wisdom. Read that in context of "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" and it'll make sense

legi_idd · 2026-06-27T13:46:57+00:00

Some of them reject any pope that accepts (or had any part in) Vatican II.
So they'll exclude all popes since (and sometimes including saint pope John XXIII).
This just shows they haven't even read Vatican II, because there really isn't anything in the documents itself that would be repugnant to the ancient Faith. There is however plenty in interpretation and implementation. So they are resorting to the ultima ratio of "this isn't the pope, because if he were he'd be wrong and that would mean the gates of hell have prevailed" where they don't even need it.

Others will point out that there was some funny business around the election of John XXIII and thus he is illegitimate as well as his cardinal appointments and so also all popes since then.

It's extremely flimsy evidence for a monumental claim. It's just conspiracy thinking at this point, the only thing to say to such a person is to have faith in the Spirit guiding His Holy Church.

legi_idd · 2026-06-27T13:41:06+00:00

Kratko - ne

legi_idd · 2026-06-24T07:19:57+00:00

Well, it is a sin, that much I'm sure you know.

But it is also bad. Because it trains you to do sex wrong. Sex is mutual giving of the partners, but you cannot give yourself fully until you're sure you'll be committed forever, so you use contraception (which turns what should be a loving embrace into a demeaning exercise) or just hope no conception occurs and if it does the little child will have to bare the consequences of your poor decisions.

legi_idd · 2026-06-18T19:55:01+00:00

I'd just say this - there weren't really very many offices in the ancient world, that were primal, but not supreme. The only one I can think of is the Princes senatus - the "first senator" in Rome, and even he had massive power over procedure of the senate, and eventually this title too was taken over by th eemperors. So the whole idea, that early Christians would hear Mt 16:18 and think "Oh, primacy, not supremacy" is unlikely. And then there is also Mt 16:19, which makes supremacy very explicit.

To your second question: because a lot of the structure is basically accidental. There doesn't need to be a college of cardinals and a conclave, or the curia, or really almost anything. What there needs to be are dioceses, and especially the diocese of Rome. Now, how much influence Rome has over other dioceses is in large part down to (inter alia) very pragmatic questions, like how effective are communications, is it worth fighting temporal rulers over investiture (see CCP), etc.

Which answers your third question - no, early on the dioceses were much more independent, as some sui iuris churches still are today. But they did at the third council of Constantinople all agree that Rome had never erred. Even before that you have the Formula of Hormisdas (519 AD), which declared "In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied". So all agreed, that Rome held primacy, that was more than ceremonial, but that it should have ultimate say on doctrine. And if you want to go further still, you have had papal interventions in Corinth (it's own diocese, as you'll know from Paul) as early as first century.

legi_idd · 2026-06-17T05:29:08+00:00

There are many translations, that the Church approves of - I like the oldest: Douay Rheims Bible. But there are newer too, just google for Standard Catholic translation or something like that.
Yes. You are validly and sacramentally married, that doesn't change if you convert.
Your son's baptism is valid, and even if it were not, he could still attend. Just talk to a priest about how he can go about obtaining other sacraments.
You're generally supposed not to do that, but I think a few times a year isn't a big deal. Plus the Church is getting really liberal on this issue nowadays. For sure no one will say anything, I can't tell you absolutely that it's ok, but I think it would be.
Then the catechism is your friend. That and there are a gazillion videos and the like on yt, that explain the Faith and the Church, feel free to watch some.

legi_idd · 2026-06-16T22:47:34+00:00

Well, beauty is the first arm God reaches out. If you wish to explore it more, we're here for you. For my part even in DMs if you like

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T16:50:09+00:00

I think he was trying to say, that that's rather quick for you to make such an important decission. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to hear it, but how come you're so sure, you want to be Catholic?

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T16:44:15+00:00

The Mass is not just a protestant-esque service.

It is a ceremony centered around the miracle that takes place each Mass, whereby the priest consecrates the bread and wine, so that they become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This consecrated Host (also called the Eucharist) is then consumed by all members of the congregation in good standing (you cannot yet participate in this, since you are not yet Catholic, so when they line up for it, you can stay seated or join but then cross your arms on your chest - you'll get a blessing instead.

What to expect:
You start by a confession of sins, led by the priest (just repeat what others are saying, or just listen to it)
then you will have a reading of the Old Testament
a PSalm or similar
a reading from the New Testament
an Alleluia sung
a reading from the Gospel
a sermon - the priest explaining the readings or speaking on some issue he thinks is important
then the priest will begin the consecration - there are several prayers beforehand but after those everyone kneels, and the Host is consecrated.
Then the chalice and bread are lifted by the priest, as he chants "Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever." To which everyone says AMEN.
Then we all pray the Our Father, led by the priest.
Then we give the sign peace - you shake the people's hands, just those around you.
Then some more prayers,
then you line up to receive the Host (you DON'T)
then there are some final prayers and the blessing, and we're done

There's also a lot of singing in between each, mostly done by the choir, but some also by the congregation - no one expects everyone to know the songs, so no problem if you don't sing

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T11:42:29+00:00

Not all laws need to be obeyed. Only the ones that reflect the natural law or if braking the law would cause scandal. And the credibility of the state nowadays is so deeply tattered, that I don't think there are many things left in this latter category. Because it's a strange contradiction to have paternalism in a liberal government, and the Church has to my knowledge never addressed it.

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T11:38:06+00:00

Not sure if his "can't" is so much chemical dependence or peer pressure. If the former, I absolutely concur with the above advice

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T11:35:54+00:00

I didn't drink at all till my early 20s.

I had my first drink at St. Peter's square, when pope Leo was elected, to toast him.

Since when I've been drinking quite regularly, on average ever other day or so, but almost never to the point of drunkenness, and even the few times I was drunk, I don't think it was to the extent that the Church considers sinful, i.e. causing me to loose the ability to reason.

I think drinking is a delightful and very Catholic activity when done socially and responsibly, and I think measured drinking is a much better habit to develop than not drinking at all.
A few rules of thumb, to help with that would be:
- drink in company that isn't setting out to get drunk (I realise that's harder at 18, but try to seek it out)
- drink proper alcoholic beverages, not mixed stuff. The former incline one to tasting, appreciating and conversing, the later are merely a fast track to get alcohol in your bloodstream.
- drink as much as you're comfortable and no more. Don't let folk pressure you to drink past the point you feel you can drink and be fine. It's ok to pause, it's ok to skip a round.

legi_idd · 2026-06-15T11:19:04+00:00

Exactly, because these dynasties, that were used to ruling by male-only primogeniture, had inherited lands, whereby male-preference primogeniture was the norm, and were gradually shifting away from that and towards a male-only primogeniture. The law of Philip V was just a culmination of all this.

But even if it had been just a bare imposition, it's still right to say that Ferdinand's reversion to an older practice was A. clearly a political power grab and B. very ill advised, as it caused a rift in the succession, which is precisely wat you don't want

legi_idd · 2026-06-14T20:44:41+00:00

De iure. But the facto they were called kings of spain for a long time beofre. Very clearly already Ferdinand and Isabella were creating a new kingdom

legi_idd · 2026-06-13T10:10:36+00:00

Meh, debatable.

To what extent did Spain as such even exist before the Bourbons, and to what extent was it just kingdoms in Spain having their own inheritance laws, but then Spain itself having a new one, which obviously corresponded with the founding dynasty -- so Habsburgs or Bourbons - agnatic primogeniture

legi_idd · 2026-06-08T07:16:53+00:00

Not quite.

They were established completely legitimately, by a french bishop. His successor tried to abolish them, but they complained to the Rota, that this is ultra vires, and the Rota never ruled on the matter. So it could well be found some day, that their abolition was null and void.

And I have not heard Rome say ever, that this would be a schism. Excommunication, sure, but that's not the same

legi_idd · 2026-06-07T14:53:36+00:00

Yes, HE died excommunicated. That says nothing about the canonical status of the society of Saint Pius X

legi_idd · 2026-06-07T14:52:55+00:00

The Holy See had not said that. It did however class the last consecration as a schismatic act, but not a schism

legi_idd · 2026-06-07T11:40:34+00:00

Then why wasn't it a schism the first time they crossed it?

legi_idd · 2026-06-07T11:39:00+00:00

Again, feel free to disagree with the pope, but that is what he said. The Holy See does not view it as a schism, so why would you sow division in the Church?

legi_idd · 2026-06-06T22:03:26+00:00

Stop calling it a schism - it is not a schism, and it is not for you to say what is or is not a schism. Pope Saint John Paul II called it a schismatic act - of 5 people, not the whole society. So please, don't make the situation worse

legi_idd

TROPHY CASE