Zone1 Catholics: Unfortunately the Society of St Pius X "branch" of the Catholic Church is also in error

notmyfault2020

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2022
6,542
3,200
893
I found the following at Novus Ordo Watch, which has the great habit or tradition of quoting.. go figure..

past popes, some of them canonized saints like St Pius X (and for whom the SSPX was named).

OK, so at that site we see how WRONG the SSPX are to accept the authority of the modern popes (all those after Pius XII) while at the same time resisting him, rejecting his bizarre teachings (yes, I know, Francis's teachings are not ex cathedra... That doesn't matter here).

The SSPX call it Recognize and Resist. But NOW (novus ordo watch) blows that position out of the water with.. again, quotes from past popes (the pre-Vatican II-non-heretical-Council popes).

Which group do YOU trust?

NOW calls this position "having your pope and beating him too" LOL

Pope Leo XIII who had one of the longest pontificates in history (1878-1903) put forth the truly Catholic position RE the authority of the pope and the local bishops, and the proper respect and submission that the faithful are required to render them--since they speak for Christ: "He who hears you, hears Me." ---Jesus

The SSPX.. .out of ignorance as to how illogical they are (in disagreeing w/ the saintly pope Leo XIII by not submitting to "Pope" Francis's teachings, yet at the same time not going so far as to hold that F is not a true pope), are in schism.

If the TRUE pope is infallible as per traditional Church teaching (my thoughts here), and someone who purports to be pope comes along and teaches falsity, it just stands to reason that he is not a true pope despite all appearances to the contrary. This paragraph is mostly my own thought, not speaking for NOW except that NOW is what got me thinking about all this..

So in other words, all those Catholics who resist and reject "pope" Francis's teachings, yet hold that the novus ordo Church is still the same Church we had for 1960 + years before the heretical Vatican II (but few Catholics call it that) should (NOW words)

"get off the fence!"
 
Last edited:
I found the following at Novus Ordo Watch, which has the great habit or tradition of quoting.. go figure..

past popes, some of them canonized saints like St Pius X (and for whom the SSPX was named).

OK, so at that site we see how WRONG the SSPX are to accept the authority of the modern popes (all those after Pius XII) while at the same time resisting him, rejecting his bizarre teachings (yes, I know, Francis's teachings are not ex cathedra... That doesn't matter here).

The SSPX call it Recognize and Resist. But NOW (novus ordo watch) blows that position out of the water with.. again, quotes from past popes (the pre-Vatican II-non-heretical-Council popes).

Which group do YOU trust?

NOW calls this position "having your pope and beating him too" LOL

Pope Leo XIII who had one of the longest pontificates in history (1878-1903) put forth the truly Catholic position RE the authority of the pope and the local bishops, and the proper respect and submission that the faithful are required to render them--since they speak for Christ: "He who hears you, hears Me." ---Jesus

The SSPX.. .out of ignorance as to how illogical they are (in disagreeing w/ the saintly pope Leo XIII by not submitting to "Pope" Francis's teachings, yet at the same time not going so far as to hold that F is not a true pope), are in schism.

If the TRUE pope is infallible as per traditional Church teaching (my thoughts here), and someone who purports to be pope comes along and teaches falsity, it just stands to reason that he is not a true pope despite all appearances to the contrary. This paragraph is mostly my own thought, not speaking for NOW except that NOW is what got me thinking about all this..

So in other words, all those Catholics who resist and reject "pope" Francis's teachings, yet hold that the novus ordo Church is still the same Church we had for 1960 + years before the heretical Vatican II (but few Catholics call it that) should (NOW words)

"get off the fence!"
Disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian. That said, it has always amazed me how Christians can never agree on a definition of who are Christians but everyone of them knows who are not Christians.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian. That said, it has always amazed me how Christians can never agree on a definition of who are Christians but everyone of them knows who are not Christians.
well, this is not really saying anything so I won't say much in response except that I have no real idea what you a re trying to say here... details are so lacking
 
well, this is not really saying anything so I won't say much in response except that I have no real idea what you a re trying to say here... details are so lacking
Lets me put it another way. You seem to have an issue with the current Pope. Is the Pope a Christian?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Lets me put it another way. You seem to have an issue with the current Pope. Is the Pope a Christian?
No

not IMO ( knowing what I know about him, what he has said)

For starters, he said there is no Hell.

Catholics have always believed there was.. up until Francis (and most still do). So I guess according to some, the Church was wrong for 1962 years? No, it is Francis who is wrong.. If you do not believe all that Jesus said, or at least all we know He said (it's in the New T), you can't call yourself a Christian. You cna't just cherry pick and throw out what u don't like.. Protestants (most) agree w/ that.. or at least used to..
 
No

not IMO ( knowing what I know about him, what he has said)

For starters, he said there is no Hell.

Catholics have always believed there was.. up until Francis (and most still do). So I guess according to some, the Church was wrong for 1962 years? No, it is Francis who is wrong.. If you do not believe all that Jesus said, or at least all we know He said (it's in the New T), you can't call yourself a Christian. You cna't just cherry pick and throw out what u don't like.. Protestants (most) agree w/ that.. or at least used to..
OK, if you don't believe in Hell you're not a Christian. Any other non-starters for being Christian?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
OK, if you don't believe in Hell you're not a Christian. Any other non-starters for being Christian?
if you are criticizing that..

Answer this:

How can a person claim to be a follower of Christ if he doesn't accept all that Christ said.. just picks and chooses?
 
if you are criticizing that..
First off, as a non-Christian I don't criticize, I'm only here trying to understand.

Answer this:

How can a person claim to be a follower of Christ if he doesn't accept all that Christ said.. just picks and chooses?
Actually, we have nothing that Jesus wrote. Everything we know about Him comes from others.

Some Christians take the OT and NT as literally truth, e.g., the universe was created in 6 days, there was a global flood, no 'macro' evolution, etc. Others believe the Bible is a combination of myth, allegory, history, and theology and evolution is acceptable. Others believe the Bible is a divinely inspired work of man and contains very human errors and manipulations. To me they are all Christians.
 

Catholics: Unfortunately the Society of St Pius X "branch" of the Catholic Church is also in error​


The Lefebvreists are no Catholics. Pius X has absolutelly nothing to do with them.
 
Disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian. That said, it has always amazed me how Christians can never agree on a definition of who are Christians but everyone of them knows who are not Christians.

Looks like you are not a Christian who has not a big idea about who are Christians and who are not Christians. Never met a Christian in your life?
 
First off, as a non-Christian I don't criticize, I'm only here trying to understand.


Actually, we have nothing that Jesus wrote. Everything we know about Him comes from others.

Some Christians take the OT and NT as literally truth, e.g., the universe was created in 6 days, there was a global flood, no 'macro' evolution, etc. Others believe the Bible is a combination of myth, allegory, history, and theology and evolution is acceptable. Others believe the Bible is a divinely inspired work of man and contains very human errors and manipulations. To me they are all Christians.

What do you really like to know "student of trying to understand"?

 
Last edited:
...

Answer this:

How can a person claim to be a follower of Christ if he doesn't accept all that Christ said.. just picks and chooses?

Because she is in Jesus and Jesus is in her and/or Jesus will come to her and so it will be. (The word "person" has a female grammatical gender in my own language. Same in Latin.)
 
Last edited:
I'm not an avid follower of the Papal scene ... but, it seems to me that the last really cool Pope was Alexander VI.

.
theborgias.jpeg
 
First off, as a non-Christian I don't criticize, I'm only here trying to understand.


Actually, we have nothing that Jesus wrote. Everything we know about Him comes from others.

Some Christians take the OT and NT as literally truth, e.g., the universe was created in 6 days, there was a global flood, no 'macro' evolution, etc. Others believe the Bible is a combination of myth, allegory, history, and theology and evolution is acceptable. Others believe the Bible is a divinely inspired work of man and contains very human errors and manipulations. To me they are all Christians.
There is evidence that the world was flooded long ago.. The remains of the Ark were allegedly found in Turkey some time back.. don't have details. Also, in the 1800s a man was found, alive, in the belly of a whale..
 
The Lefebvreists are no Catholics. Pius X has absolutelly nothing to do with them.
Gee... that kind of makes sense... that Pius X had absolutely nothing to do with them.. seeing as how they formed in 1970 LONG AFTER the death of Pius X

:rolleyes:

Always good to do homework before professing or pretending to be knowledgeable
 
There is evidence that the world was flooded long ago.. The remains of the Ark were allegedly found in Turkey some time back.. don't have details. Also, in the 1800s a man was found, alive, in the belly of a whale..
There have been multiple, large floods but none were global. There have been major changes in sea level that were global but took place over thousands of years.

I haven't heard about the Ark but it would seem such a momentous discovery would be on everyone's lips. There have been many hoaxes to date.

You should be more skeptical of such whaling tales.
 
There have been multiple, large floods but none were global. There have been major changes in sea level that were global but took place over thousands of years.

I haven't heard about the Ark but it would seem such a momentous discovery would be on everyone's lips. There have been many hoaxes to date.

You should be more skeptical of such whaling tales.
sorry but these were scientists who said that YES, there was a global flood around the time when Noah was supposed to have lived
 

Forum List

Back
Top