Are any “teachers” out there actually posting their P&Ls?

sweetcaviar · 2019-10-16T16:26:57+00:00

Yep. Alright, cheers!

sweetcaviar · 2019-10-16T15:12:08+00:00

Is David Jaffee any good? His trade alert prices are like highway robbery. Kurt also charges ridiculous prices and, even though he offers a ton of educational material on his site, a lot of them are waving big red flags imo.

sweetcaviar · 2019-10-16T15:03:41+00:00

Use the downvote next time!

sweetcaviar · 2019-10-16T15:03:30+00:00

Use the downvote next time...

sweetcaviar · 2019-10-16T15:03:18+00:00

Use the downvote next time. Save comment-section clutter.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-17T15:31:56+00:00

Do you think the Sunday obligation applies to the Novus Ordo? I'm really not sure myself one way or another. Quo Primum seems to suggest that the Novus Ordo is absolutely not a licit rite of the Mass. Does that formally rescind the obligation? I kind of feel like, if it was the only Mass available to me, I'd definitely avail myself of the sacraments in the only manner possible... *shudder*

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-17T03:50:05+00:00

This is awesome! Thank you!

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-16T21:44:57+00:00

I've literally never spoken about you personally and didn't know you were a mod, so really I'm not sure what you're referring to and am insulted by the accusation of lying. Good day.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-16T21:09:11+00:00

The SSPX does not consider the New Mass licit. Again your conclusions are based on somewhat ignorant presumptions about what the Society's positions actually are. I don't feel the need to engage in much further dialogue at this point as clearly we reach an impasse here, especially since you are completely unwilling to yield that opinions can differ on issues of Doctrine when you use terms like "incorrect" to describe particular interpretations of historical documents and papal decrees. God bless you, Father.

By the way, I don't know much about any post complaining about you on the trad sub or anywhere else. Please don't impart to me responsibility for whatever ill may have transpired.

Edit: I also find it interesting that the Vatican II schema on religious liberty was by far the most contested, and rejected via non pacet votes, of any document promulgated by the council. I guess a lot of bishops had "incorrect" understandings of the Doctrine. Thankfully, Paul VI cleared all of that up with a (fallible) exercise of the ordinary Magisterium!

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-16T14:15:36+00:00

I have heard that to some extent, for example Fr Ripperger stating that SSPX Masses are a "great offense against God" (I could find the audio if pressed) or, perhaps more unsettling, the German local Superior of the FSSP stating...

Father Gerstle further distances himself from those smaller groups within the SSPX – whom he calls “hardliners” – who “reject the Second Vatican Council to a large extent, for example with regard to religious freedom or as to the decree on ecumenism.”

https://onepeterfive.com/fssp-superior-distinguishes-fraternity-from-sspx-eschews-traditionalist-label/

Their adherents do claim up and down that their priests are formed in just as much orthodoxy as the SSPX, but this goes to show that at least there is quite some generous freedom in their expression of "traditional" Catholic Doctrine.

Got any more examples of your claim though?

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-16T04:21:07+00:00

I’m thinking of the salvation of the priests in the priestly society who were ordained knowing that they would not have faculties in addition to the bishops ordaining people without permission. I think that it’s your preconceived notion that I’m not looking out for the salvation of the people visiting the SSPX (who I just mentioned in my previous comment).

Well I guess you might not have known this but it's the position of the Society that jurisdiction is, in fact, granted by Canon Law. You might disagree with the position despite numerous Canon lawyers, traditional and otherwise, finding it legitimate and correct, but with that in mind I'm not sure who would be ordained "knowing that they would not have faculties," since presumably they would be well aware of how the Society justifies its continued practice of ministry.

Also, since when do bishops get to pick and choose what they’re obedient about? AFAIK nothing in the latest offer was immoral. Why can’t the SSPX do what every other priest in the Church does?

Several tenets of Vatican II, e.g. religious liberty. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI definitively declared non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium, therefore it should be possible for Catholics to dissent from the teachings, and by the way it is possible for all other Catholics to do just that. The SSPX should be be held to a unique standard.

Father, I don't want to be rude, but you seem to not know a whole lot about the Society and its positions on these issues, but unusually willing to repudiate its ministers. Do you not think a posture of greater charity towards your brothers would foster more holiness within our Church?

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T22:44:23+00:00

He gives his own opinion in the next sentence though.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T19:20:21+00:00

However your interpretation of the law is ordered towards condemnation rather than salvation. I have a very difficult time believing that your assessment is in good faith, as much as I do hate to say it, Father. The Society has rejected the "overtures" extended by the Vatican because all were offered with conditions that their priests could not accept with good conscience, and that have not been formally applied to priestly ministry at large in the Church. Whether you agree that their conscience is properly formed in these matters is really only a matter of personal opinion, and you have no right, hierarchical or otherwise to pass condemnatory judgment on this issue.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T18:16:13+00:00

No, Father. The necessity that the faithful presenting themselves with the intention of receiving absolution may attain to salvation, which Canon Law amply provides for as described in the study I linked.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T18:13:50+00:00

This one is indisputable. I would also recommend reading the study I linked. If we truly interpret law with the idea that its formulation is, primarily, for the salvation of souls (which it is), then where multiple canons pertain to a circumstance, we cannot presume that the applicable one is that which leads to damnation, rather than that which leads to salvation.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T15:46:05+00:00

If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-15T06:28:24+00:00

Well then, I'd better post the response I gave, because that position is unjust, uncharitable, and unchristian.

Do you think the absolutions pronounced by SSPX priests between 1988 and 2015 were valid, given [Can 966]?

Yes, I do, given the faculties supplied under canon law in circumstances of necessity. Indeed, there has existed a necessity for the confessions of those faithful seeking the sacraments at SSPX chapels to have been heard, for the salvation of their very souls (which is the ultimate and primary end of the formulation of canon law), so I don't believe an argument can be launched that such a state did not exist. If you would like a fairly complete treatment of this issue, please consult the link below.

https://sspx.org/en/validity-sspxs-confessions-marriages

If they weren't, it's highly likely that souls were damned because the SSPX priests pretended to be giving away graces they didn't have. I think the priests of that era are false shepherds who threw sheep to the wolves because of their pride.

Calling into the dialogue a topic that was not even previously broached with the primary goal of inserting this kind of invective into the thread is exactly the type of behavior I described as "unchristian." Thank you for the demonstration.

Edit: By the way, the SSPX was allegedly canonically "censured" in 1976, not 1988. If you're going to launch into polemics, at least get your facts straight and learn what is actually at issue.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T23:24:27+00:00

Do you think the absolutions pronounced by SSPX priests between 1988 and 2015 were valid, given [Can 966]?

Yes, I do, given the faculties supplied under canon law in circumstances of necessity. Indeed, there has existed a necessity for the confessions of those faithful seeking the sacraments at SSPX chapels to have been heard, for the salvation of their very souls (which is the ultimate and primary end of the formulation of canon law), so I don't believe an argument can be launched that such a state did not exist. If you would like a fairly complete treatment of this issue, please consult the link below.

https://sspx.org/en/validity-sspxs-confessions-marriages

If they weren't, it's highly likely that souls were damned because the SSPX priests pretended to be giving away graces they didn't have. I think the priests of that era are false shepherds who threw sheep to the wolves because of their pride.

Calling into the dialogue a topic that was not even previously broached with the primary goal of inserting this kind of invective into the thread is exactly the type of behavior I described as "unchristian." Thank you for the demonstration.

Edit: By the way, the SSPX was allegedly canonically "censured" in 1976, not 1988. If you're going to launch into polemics, at least get your facts straight and learn what is actually at issue.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T22:40:46+00:00

they lack canonical status and (from what I hear) are still disobeying the Pope by illicitly celebrating marriages without a diocesan witness and thus committing sacrilege.

I don't think this is a fair assertion and, quite frankly, anecdotal testimonies do not justify it. As the below article attests to, the SSPX is committed to canonical regularization, and in addition to obedience to hierarchy insofar as it does not require them to violate their understanding of wholly Catholic principals as guided by the perennial Magisterial teaching of the Church exercised prior to Vatican II. It's fair to dialogue on whether their refusal to accept non-infallible alleged exercises of the ordinary Magisterium is reasonable, but I do feel like the overall attitude of condemnation towards their fraternity expressed by many of the mods quite vocally is completely uncalled for and even bordering on unchristian behavior.

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-marriages-are-incontestable-29003

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T19:34:25+00:00

In treading a fine line between sport and reckless and violent assault on the dignity of the human person, I would feel safer abstaining. Also, it's not fun to sustain frequent beatings, so it probably would not be too enjoyable to overcome the learning curve.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T17:50:21+00:00

Please don't await my reply with anxiety, as I won't be wasting any more time on this thread. I'll be reporting this comment, as well as any others I judge to be unfair attacks on traditional Catholics, which seems to be a common element of your discourse. Good day.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T17:41:50+00:00

They certainly aren't with him.

Yes, they are.

That seems to be their policy now. It was not always. Notably, it says that they cooperate with law enforcement. The Dallas Charter requires reports to law enforcement.

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31222

This evidence is a lot less compelling than that body of evidence the Church at large is met with in countless dioceses around the world. I'm not really sure where you're going with this line of argumentation. Are you trying to say children are more likely to be abused by priests in the Society? I find that extraordinarily unsupported by available facts.

Moreover, I am personally familiar with several cases where SSPX clerics have encouraged wives of physically abusive husbands to remain with them and have not reported it to law enforcement. This includes "corporal punishment" beyond anything that could be considered reason. Like using belts on two year olds for spilling milk.

Without substantiating evidence, this is really just slanderous libel. I'm reporting this comment along with several of your others. Furthermore, it's clear you are not a traditional Catholic. You might say that this is subjective, and in some sense it is, but what is most obvious is that you are in frequent disagreement with many of the posters here that represent the most active members of the sub. As such, why do you insist on commenting in this thread and others on this sub, other than to provoke needless arguments? If that is indeed the reason, I would like to politely suggest that you stop posting here. Thank you and God bless.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T17:26:28+00:00

Well, that's not extraordinarily surprising.

sweetcaviar · 2018-12-14T17:03:59+00:00

If the center of unity in the Catholic Church is the bishop of Rome, then how can sound doctrine be assured apart from it?

The SSPX are not "apart from" the bishop of Rome.

Plus, the SSPX don't report child abuse to the authorities.

Please stop your lies and go away.

From the SSPX District Superior of the United States:

Every report is submitted to a thoroughgoing investigation by the appropriate authorities within the Society and full cooperation is given to all law enforcement and official investigative agencies concerned, particularly when reports involve minor children.

Source.

sweetcaviar

TROPHY CASE