SSPX contradicts Trent?

[james03]

but I keep feeling that the SSPX position may contradict the Council of Trent.

Concern trolling now?

This is not particular to the SSPX.  All Trads take this seriously.  As mentioned, this is in reference to the TLM.

[californiacatholic]

No I just am genuinely conflicted and am trying to navigate very confusing times. I dont believe in trolling.

[Stubborn]

No I just am genuinely conflicted and am trying to navigate very confusing times. I dont believe in trolling.

To help unconfuse, keep it simple. At the stage you're in there is really no need to dive much further than the surface...

There was a Council (V2) that created a new religion. This new religion was perpetrated upon the faithful using the same authority the Church has always used. Because the same authority was used to perpetrate this new religion, most people went along with it and still do.

The SSPX was established because it rightfully rejected the new religion and remained faithful to the true religion in spite of and against the wishes of the authority perpetrating the new religion. So have no fear of attending the SSPX, but do have fear attending or using the new religion's services.

That's the whole of it in a very small nutshell.

[californiacatholic]

No I just am genuinely conflicted and am trying to navigate very confusing times. I dont believe in trolling.

To help unconfuse, keep it simple. At the stage you're in there is really no need to dive much further than the surface...

There was a Council (V2) that created a new religion. This new religion was perpetrated upon the faithful using the same authority the Church has always used. Because the same authority was used to perpetrate this new religion, most people went along with it and still do.

The SSPX was established because it rightfully rejected the new religion and remained faithful to the true religion in spite of and against the wishes of the authority perpetrating the new religion. So have no fear of attending the SSPX, but do have fear attending or using the new religion's services.

That's the whole of it in a very small nutshell.

I understand. Just difficult to make the jump to rejecting almost the entire visible Church. Wouldn't this mean the Gates of Hell prevailed?

[Stubborn]

No I just am genuinely conflicted and am trying to navigate very confusing times. I dont believe in trolling.

To help unconfuse, keep it simple. At the stage you're in there is really no need to dive much further than the surface...

There was a Council (V2) that created a new religion. This new religion was perpetrated upon the faithful using the same authority the Church has always used. Because the same authority was used to perpetrate this new religion, most people went along with it and still do.

The SSPX was established because it rightfully rejected the new religion and remained faithful to the true religion in spite of and against the wishes of the authority perpetrating the new religion. So have no fear of attending the SSPX, but do have fear attending or using the new religion's services.

That's the whole of it in a very small nutshell.

I understand. Just difficult to make the jump to rejecting almost the entire visible Church. Wouldn't this mean the Gates of Hell prevailed?

It *is* difficult to accept and most people refuse to accept it, even though they see it with their own eyes they refuse to believe it. At any rate, it is with faith that we know that the gates of hell will never prevail. The Demons do not believe this, which explains why they will never stop trying to destroy the Church.

You go to the SSPX, there you will receive true, valid sacraments and have the faith preached to you from the pulpit. Avoid the NO always no matter what.

I personally believe that since V2 we are living the prophesy of Jeremias 23:1-4.
 
   

[AlNg]

Just difficult to make the jump to rejecting almost the entire visible Church. Wouldn't this mean the Gates of Hell prevailed?

Yes. I think so. SV effectively do not believe that the Catholic Church is indefectible. They say that the visible head of the Catholic Church and the visible hierarchy have strayed from the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church has morphed into a counterfeit Church. IOW, the Catholic Church has defected from its mission.

[james03]

I understand. Just difficult to make the jump to rejecting almost the entire visible Church. Wouldn't this mean the Gates of Hell prevailed?

Your use of the word "almost" means that they have not.

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. ... And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:  14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

I believe we are living in those times.  It's a personal opinion and there is no requirement for you to believe it.  Trad Central is the USA, whose emblem is the eagle.

[californiacatholic]

I understand. Just difficult to make the jump to rejecting almost the entire visible Church. Wouldn't this mean the Gates of Hell prevailed?

Your use of the word "almost" means that they have not.

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. ... And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:  14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

I believe we are living in those times.  It's a personal opinion and there is no requirement for you to believe it.  Trad Central is the USA, whose emblem is the eagle.

Maybe 98% of Roman Catholics accept the Councilar Church, probably over two thirds of those don't even understand the nuances of liturgical reform or are aware of SV/SD. The SV/SD positions are incredibly obscure and far from visible to your average person.

The conclusion is that Christ allowed his church to be entirely destroyed save for a tiny group of competing, eccentric, and scattered sects most of whose Bishops have little legitimacy at all.

Christ allowed the office of the Papacy and the Magisterium to be deprived of all of their previously dogmatic and assured powers and instituted a sinful mass.

The idea that Christ allowed the Gates of Hell to prevail and allowed his church to institute a sinful mass as to lead to the damnation of millions of practicing Catholics seems like a much harder sell than you make it out to be.

I'm not opposed to the SSPX and believe in the tradition of the church but this tradition states the church is indefectible and pure and never will it be conquered. The arguments I've seen for SV/SD stem solely from private revelations or personal interpretation of scripture which seems Protestant.

[AlNg]

There was a Council (V2) that created a new religion.

Did the Catholic Church then morph into this new religion? Something is wrong because the Catholic church is indefectible, so how can the visible Head of the Catholic church and the visible hierarchy of the Catholic church defect and stray from the Traditional true Catholic teachings? Unless it is not true that the Catholic church is indefectible? Which position I thought was heretical?

[AlNg]

Maybe 98% of Roman Catholics accept the Councilar Church, probably over two thirds of those don't even understand the nuances of liturgical reform or are aware of SV/SD. The SV/SD positions are incredibly obscure and far from visible to your average person.

The conclusion is that Christ allowed his church to be entirely destroyed save for a tiny group of competing, eccentric, and scattered sects most of whose Bishops have little legitimacy at all.

Christ allowed the office of the Papacy and the Magisterium to be deprived of all of their previously dogmatic and assured powers and instituted a sinful mass.

The idea that Christ allowed the Gates of Hell to prevail and allowed his church to institute a sinful mass as to lead to the damnation of millions of practicing Catholics seems like a much harder sell than you make it out to be.

Yes. The sticking point is the authoritative teaching that the Catholic church is indefectible.

[james03]

The common interpretation of the woman fleeing into the wilderness is that this is the Church.  It is not a personal interpretation.  I guess it's a personal decision to agree with the common opinion.

And so yes, the Church is not destroyed.  It goes into hiding and basically the remainder of the world, which is most, gets a heavy dose of Chastisement.  1/3 ends up dead.

[AlNg]

And so yes, the Church is not destroyed.  It goes into hiding

How does that square with the teaching on the visibility of the Catholic church?

[californiacatholic]

The common interpretation of the woman fleeing into the wilderness is that this is the Church.  It is not a personal interpretation.  I guess it's a personal decision to agree with the common opinion.

And so yes, the Church is not destroyed.  It goes into hiding and basically the remainder of the world, which is most, gets a heavy dose of Chastisement.  1/3 ends up dead.

Wasn't this not supposed to include the Chair of Peter and visible hierarchy of the Church?

[Stubborn]

There was a Council (V2) that created a new religion.

Did the Catholic Church then morph into this new religion? Something is wrong because the Catholic church is indefectible, so how can the visible Head of the Catholic church and the visible hierarchy of the Catholic church defect and stray from the Traditional true Catholic teachings? Unless it is not true that the Catholic church is indefectible? Which position I thought was heretical?

It's about 6 minutes long, well worth the time.

[Stubborn]

The common interpretation of the woman fleeing into the wilderness is that this is the Church.  It is not a personal interpretation.  I guess it's a personal decision to agree with the common opinion.

And so yes, the Church is not destroyed.  It goes into hiding and basically the remainder of the world, which is most, gets a heavy dose of Chastisement.  1/3 ends up dead.

I disagree it goes into hiding, I would liken the matter today to Christ in His Passion, when He was suffering, all battered, bruised and humiliated even the Apostles did not recognize Him as God. Today it is the Church that is all battered and bruised, and while the Church may be unrecognizable to many, it is still right there for all who seek to find, and will remain so till the end of time. 

"...Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have His victory, when He emerged from the tomb He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church. It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it's terrible embarrassments, it's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place..." - Fr. Wathen