If one wanted to become a Catholic in the current year is an SSPX parish the best option...

My quick google search says otherwise but if you could back up your claim I would honestly be delighted.
You are absolutely not obliged to reject VII, yet you absolutely should reject it anyways. VII is unique among ecumenical councils in that it is a "pastoral council," which is essentially a synod on a mass scale designed to determine the direction of the Church moving forward, as opposed to a dogmatic council, which is used to establish elements of sacred tradition as immutable, unquestionable dogma, as guided by the Holy Spirit. It has no infallibility at all because it does not define new dogma, Most of VII is largeley inoffensive in simply presenting elements of tradition in a new context, but the few parts that are offensive, namely Nostra Aetate, are quite frankly rank. Allah is equated with God, which I suppose would make sense to the Israelites but not to the Church, and certainly not to Muslims who consider trinitarians polytheists. Similar concessions are made to the Jews; the document also clarifies that the onus of decide does not fall on modern Jews or even most of the Israelites of Jesus's time, which is a welcome clarification, yet the mass of corrupt exegisis that is rabbinical Judaism is left unmentioned. Even element of Hinduism and Buddhism are praised. The likely philosophy behind this statement is an ancient element of tradition that states that while there is no salvation outside the Church, those who strive to do God's will to the extent of their knowledge, while remaining invincibly ignorant of the Church's teachings, may also, by the grace of God, be saved. Statements by mystics such as Padre Pio, who is known to have confirmed that the Anglican King of England and one of his parishoner's devout Jewish father would, with much prayer, be saved, do corroborate this fact, if not empirically. But VII took it one step too far with the ecumenical movement, and comparing the modern Church with the Orthodox, who have made none of these concessions, shows how disastrous this move has been.

I mean the NO is a lax mess, don't get me wrong; my closest mass is my college service and it's just depressing, but I've never heard that young catholics flock to the old rite. I know they're much more traditional, but not that.

Wait until the SSPX comes into full communion with the Holy see.
Meanwhile you can go to FSSP for Latin masses if that's your thing.

An FSSP priest told me I could go to an SSPX mass even when there was an FSSP option nearby to it lol, and considering how much FSSP hate the SSPX, that shows something. Anyway I've read documents n shieet from some Vatican people saying there is no sin. A simple google shows that even the most milquetoast catholics grudgingly admit that it's OK to go to SSPX masses.

V2 contains error and thus we are obliged to reject it. Even if the error lies in using duplicitous vague language and weasel words, that is still error that must be rejected. Ecclesiastical language must always be clear.

It always was in communion with Rome. There is no such thing as partial communion.

You can't be in communion with Rome if Rome cuts you out of communion dude.

Yes but that never happened

web.archive.org/web/20150129194411/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046

Attached: f64.gif (360x202, 1.6M)

The Excommunication was invalid because +Lefebvre believed it was of grave necessity, which under canon law invalidates automatic excommunications. There was no schism.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3N.HTM
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM#5U
In digging through the segments of canon law on both ordination and usurpation of ecclesiastical ordinances I find no mention of "grave necessity" excusing the ordinations. I would find it highly suspect if the bishop's own subjective opinion was the sole arbiter of whether or not he was worthy of excommunication, and when his superior explicitly forbids him from ordaining the bishops you would think that he would listen. Him and the four bishops he ordained firmly decided that they would be beholden to the SSPX and not to the Pope and it was absolutely not necessary that they do so. This was not a dying bishop in the middle of the Amazon who needed to assure that his diocese would have a successor; this was schism, plain and simple.

So it was just his personal interpretation?

sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-archbishop-lefebvre-excommunicated-faq11

Canon law also states that even if there is no grave necessity and the person is in error the excommunication is still invalid.

A Chinese bishop consecrated bishops without Papal approval and JP2 said he had done the right thing and didn't need approval.

You do realise that one is obliged to disobey ones superiors when they order you to contravene faith and morality, which the post v2 popes have all done.

Reminder that no one would know how to celebrate the old rite anymore if it weren't for +Lefebvre. You can thank Lefebvre for your "Ecclesia dei" parishes. +Lefebvre ora pro nobis.

Attached: DmV4mxCUwAAQ7Bu.jpg (1159x975, 109.22K)

Canon law states that that such a provision is only valid "when unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls." Whatever the pragmatic benefits of the ordinations were, directly going over the Pope's head and trying to exercise powers exclusive to him is an intrinsicly grave offense. JP2 should have condemned those Chinese bishops, just as Pope Francis shouldn't have accepted the validity of the seven bishops appointed by the PRC.

Are you seriously claiming consecration is an intrinsicly evil act that harms souls?

PS. The chief law of Canon law is the salvation of souls, which trumps all disciplinary law. Extraordinary measures must be taken to to save souls in these extraordinary times when the shepherds are teaching heresy and immorality. You would have to be delusional to believe we do not live in a Church crisis

No, I'm claiming that disregarding the authority of the Pope and claiming his powers for your own is an intrinsically evil act that harms souls, namely the soul of the one committing the act. Imagine for a moment that the Pope decided to clean up the leadership of the Jesuits, but the Jesuits flat out decided that they wouldn't have it because they were the "defenders of orthodoxy". If JP were to allow such flimsy grounds for ignoring papal primacy to become precedent purely on the grounds of subjective opinion, then the entire hierarchy of the Church would be rendered a joke. There's no point in defending proper Church if the means by which you do so undermines the God given authority on which the Church is founded in the first place. The SSPX is not the Ark in which the true Church lives on, and inflating it to such proportions does not justify Lefebvre endangering his own soul and the souls of those in his order.

Well then you don't understand canon law as that is not the subject in question being related to the condition of not being intrinsicly evil. The action in question is consecration of a bishop which is not intrinsicly evil. The point is whether or not there was excommunication and canon law clearly says there is none. Anything you say about whether Lefebvre should have done it or not is irrelevant to this question.

Correction, The action in question is consecration of a bishop against the direct orders of the Pope which is intrinsicly evil, which is why that is the exact violation he was charged with per canon 1382. Disobedience was intrinsic to the act. Saying that because it was a consecration that it wasn't intrinsically evil is like saying that fasting to the point of suicide isn't evil because fasting isn't evil; it's a deliberate reduction of the act in order to defend what is indefensible.
And no I did not screw uo and delete that post and quite frankly I am offended that you even insinuated so.

Except disobeying the direct orders of a Pope is not an intrinsic evil. If the Pope ordered you to kill yourself, would you obey? Would it be intrinsicly evil to disobey him? Of course the answer is that as St Thomas teaches, we are obliged to disobey and to correct our superiors when they order us to do something contrary to faith and morals. Only a lunatic would say we have to obey even if told to do something evil, hence it is not intrisincly evil to disobey a superior, hence that does not apply to this even if it was the subject matter.

The Pope and the Vatican agreed to Lefebvre consecrating a Bishop but kept postponing it and actually admitted to Lefebvre when he questioned them on it that they were waiting for him to die.

Without the consecrations there would be no Old Rite left in existence. There would be no FSSP, no indult, no ICRSS and no more SSPX once all the priests died. If you ever attend old rite masses, that was only made possible because of the action that you accuse Lefebvre of being a schimsatic over.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Except usurping his powers for your own is.
So past that point the old rite would have been completely lost to time, erased from the archives, and impossible to recover in any way whatsoever? Because if not, then I see no justification for attempting to set an absurd precident vis a vis apostolic succession. I don't doubt that the Pope was clearly in the wrong in this situation, but if the only way to fix the situation was to murder the Pope, then what would you do? The result's of setting a precedent whereby any bishop can consecrate another bishop without papal approval is utter chaos, and that evil was intrinsically tied to the actions of Lefebvre. Ten years beforehand he considered it something that would have put him on the level of martin luther; protecting what is ultimately form, not function, is not worth such an action. This is an incredibly rushed response bc I have an exam to get to. Pray for me, and I'll get back to you later tn.

Here's an idea, stop justifying your homosexual Pope, become Orthodox, and go to a Western Rite parish.

Attached: sta_liturgy1.gif (417x300, 87.54K)

Except that was not the sin of usurpation as usurpation cannot validly confer the authority. Christ gave Bishops the authority to consecrate, and they can consecrate validly without the Pope. It would be the sin of usurpation if a priest tried to consecrate a Bishop because it is not possible to do so. At worst it is the sin of disobedience, however not so in this case because of necessity and the fact that Lefebvre had been meticulously lawful and obedient in everything including trying to consecrate the Bishops.

Yes the Old Rite would have been left to the schismatic groups to maintain, whilst the New Order clergy would have exterminated all knowledge and memory of the old rite as they were doing. Orders were literally burning books of old missals because they hate tradition so much. The thing about tradition is that it is passed down from Priest to Priest and congregation to congregation. Satan asked Christ for 100 years to destroy his Church as Pope Leo saw in his vision, and 100 years is how long it takes before tradition can be wiped away from living memory. The destruction of tradition was inspired by Satan.

No one was advocating murdering the Pope, only disobeying him when he was contradicting a higher authority, which is God and divine revelation. We are obliged to disobey our superiors when they command us to do something contrary to faith and morals and this is not equatable to Luther. The only protestant revolt that happened was from Rome itself and the Popes. If anything Lefebvre did not go far enough because he held obedience to the Pope so dear. He should have rejected the Missal revolution under Pius XII and the breviary revolution under Pius X too.

I asked Our Lady and +Lefebvre to intercede for you.

That's literally what he's doing, he's going Western (old) rite parish and adopting the orthodox faith which the SSPX teach

Objectively false.

Attached: 9ee1f5d0ff9b9ed77bdd638134f1a98b9d96f82012b5f7da00caac76e3b35259.jpg (1024x630, 102.41K)

Schismatics like you make me laugh, always trying to justify your severed ties from Rome.

yeah, i look at it like this: why the winnie the pooh would jesus start the catholic church and then have the one true church be the ones to branch off a thousand years later due to some autism about divine essence and theosis or whatever that no layman could understand? jay dyer and all the memodox's arguments just seem like a new form of fedora tipping where they can't just submit to authority, they HAVE to be the smartest ones, they HAVE to feel mentally superior. it was just the first wave of protestants

Attached: 1540300917218.jpg (645x1000, 106.63K)

Catholic here but
Why in life do we have to deal with things like this?

You realize what you're claiming?

bro, i don't even know.

Attached: 1540302304027.jpg (300x149, 11.11K)

You don't need to sever your ties with Rome to be a Catholic. There is this concept of filial resistance. Basically you recignise the papacy, along with papal infallibility in doctrine, but understand the need for filial correction of Pope Francis' praxis the same way a son corrects his father in error without rejecting his paternity.
I suggest Ureta's book "Paradigm Shift" on this attitude to Pope Francis and his blunders. For a more General outlook on rad trad cats who are actually effective, I suggest reading into the TFP movement of Plinio Correa d'Oliveira. The thesis behind his seminal book "Revolution and Counter Revolution" is that it is up to lay Catholics to drive the Church back to sanity.
If you're into Evola, you will notice similar discourse but strictly Catholic and with a focus on organising against leftists.

/thread

Attached: holy keks.jpg (358x310, 16.22K)

The doctrine remains the same.
Every jew that practices Judaism is responsale for Christ's blood.
But if a jew becomes Catholic (or perhaps just the rejection of Judaism would be enough) is guilt on the death of Christ is the same as ours.
The guilt of the Jews isn't because of their race, but because of their satanic religion.
The stupid article claims we don't blame the followers of Judaism as murderers which is false, since Judaism nowadays is just autistic denial of Christ.

You're going to damn uninformed people to hell with that comment of yours. You always had to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic, way before V2. That's why the Eastern Church left us. You're an idiot whose obsessed with tradition, but you don't even know what that means.

What does that mean?
"Saint" Lefebvre? Jesus Christ what level of autism is this one?
The dude wasn't even canonised and he is still excommunicated.
On thing is to say that someone who isn't a Saint like Leo XIII to pray for us, because he lived an holy life and even had visions. Other is to venerate someone who died as a schismatic.
He might be in heaven, but as long as he is still excommunicated I wouldn't venerate him because he might well be in the other side God forbid though

Leave the church because of the people goyim.
Leave Christ because he chose Judas as an Apostle.

I was thinking of undergoing this in current year, but in a regular church.. My only thought is "Benedict is still Pope Emeritus at least".. That there's still an existing Pope (albeit not with the office) who represents the Church better. It helps me look a little more kindly on leadership issues.

From my understanding, Benedict managed to be traditionalist, while also warding off the worst kind of V2 interpretations. I've always been impressed by his teachings and intellect. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wherever you can get a Tridentine Rite mass as a catholic is fine.

Please stop this autism.
There are like not even 5 tridentine Rite orthodox parishes in America, other orthobros on here have shat on it because it's one big liturgical mess and it doesn't even exit outside of Amuristan.

Benedictus XVI was the most influential theologist in the Church after the Council.
He did a great job imo as a prefect in the CDF condemning the liberal views of Vatican Council, he and John Paul II issued a declaration saying freemasons were still going to hell and in my opinion his greatest work was Dominus Iesus which restates the Catholic doctrine of salvation only inside the church because many faggots were using the council words to justify other paths of salvation.
That document states the church is the only and the one way to salvation.

So yeah the only problem with Benedictus XVI is that he had no charisma as a pope (at least for the normies because I always liked him) and that caused some problems for him like when he said shit of Muhammad and was forced to apologise and of course the sex crisis in the Church which he didn't have the strength to fight.
I hope he still has long years ahead of him because pope Francis could use a hand.

what does this mean? if he dies does francis get canned, or?

I honestly don't know. I kind of feel silly, being an outsider (for now), but it comforts me more if I hold an image of Benedict in my head if anyone refers to the Pope.

No. He is just a retired Bishop.
When a Bishop decides to resign because he is too old for the job he becomes Bishop Emeritus of random diocese.
So as far as I know he has no power over the ruling of the Church.
Pope Francis is the one who has the full papal power. What Benedictus can still do is to advise the pope and alike.

Let me just add that I don't think that Pope Francis would err when it absolutely counts. It's just many other times when conducting affairs that his words can be unsettling. While the other way around would be the reverse for Benedict.. He may not have papal power, but as a man and Christian in day to day affairs, I admire him without question.

Yeah agreed but papal infallibility also stops him from doing that, not that I think he would.

SSPX has some problems not being in full communion, but if you are part of it at least you will be less bothered by your bishops constantly advocating the destruction of the Church.

Rome says they are part of the Church. To condemn people as schismatics whom Rome does not is the mortal sins of schism and usurpation.

Liturgy is sacred tradition and immutable

but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5

Please explain why my comment would condemn someone? I never denied you must be in communion with Rome, I said "full" communion is a made up invention to shame those who don't tow the modernist party line.

Indeed you must be in communion with Rome and you are either in communion or not, there is no partial communion.

+ is just short hand for a Bishops title. Please don't take the Lord's name in vain. The excommunication was invalid and Lefebvre was a st athanasius of our time.

You shall know them by their fruits.

The fruits of the clergy are the parishoners and the fruits of the new rite are rancid.

The Papolatry has ascended to levels that might not even be possible.

Papal infallibility only protects the Pope under very specific circumstances. He absolutely can and has erred

Its true though. The new rite is shit on that we can agree.

I though you meant the church itself. My bad.

Sspx is definitely the best option. Even many of the diocesan and FSSP priests are modernists. Novus Ordo is sacrilege and protestant in origin. Lefebvre had to consecrate bishops to continue the old mass.

What does SSPX even mean? That name sounds like some extreme sport activity or some kind of edgy music concert or something.

Their concerns are mainly overblown. Let me put it to you this way: were it not for the modern West, Vatican II would pose no threat to the Church–the catch here, of course, being that without the modern West, Vatican II would never have come into existence. Vatican II was meant as a response to the modern world, the only trouble was that many within the Church, then and now, are children of modernity in the first place, and of the Church in name only. This is an age-old problem, of course, the problem being original sin and the spirit of rebellion.

These books are worth reading for a better understanding of V2's historical background:
christendom-awake.org/pages/trower/turmoil&truth.htm
christendom-awake.org/pages/trower/cc&cf/cc&cf-contents.htm

Attached: chapter 4_perpetual progress.png (1025x711 162.78 KB, 139.02K)

Here is E.Michael Jones' position on SSPX (archive)
youtube.com/watch?v=wE_URMCvXHs

Society of Saint Pius X. Known for rejecting Vatican II, offering the tridentine mass, and generally being based tradcats.

SSPX sacraments are not considered to be valid by the rest of the Church. I reccommend the FSSP instead.

I guess they are valid but illicit like the orthodox sacraments. (I guess pope Francis allowed them Confession)
After all they maintain apostolic succession.

Literally Anglicans in a bad disguise, they even use a slightly modified version of Thomas Cranmer's prayerbook

If you live in a big city, there will most likely be a trad parish in the diocese somewhere.

Also because of numbers, sspx exist solely in big cities so theyre basically useless these days

Do not encourage Schism. It is a mortal sin against both the Holy Religion and Charity.

BEGOME FSSP

I'm not encouraging lad. I'm just saying they have valid sacraments. But I said they were illicit so it's a sin for any user to go there. Except confession which I think Francis allowed.

That's false. There is a town called St. Mary's in Kansas with a population of over 2000 people, the parish has over 4000 members.