New blog on the kid: John Salza's Comment on "Lay Preachers" Changing Opinions · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Kennedy Hall Defending SSPX (and Attacking Someone's Online Behaviour)
Michael Lofton is a problem
The Kennedy Report, 28 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbqrH-3oK5k
7:22 or sth "the arguments against the SSPX are very weak" - if they come from the Modernist side.
Michael Lofton was just using an SSPX argument against using St. Robert for Sedevacantism ...
a) I commented under his video, so he can respond, if he likes
b) I also republished my comments, so my readers don't miss it
Now, I am a former faithful of the SSPX. Not former Catholic or faithful overall, but formerly of the SSPX.
There are definitely other things than "going public too soon" - like never going public at all - which can be more than just uncharitable, sometimes definitely unjust.
While I was a parishioner, time after time someone took me aside in private or gave me an answer in private, which I could not document, sometimes very clearly abusive such, like when abbé Puga at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet gave a reply presuming very unwarrantedly that I was some kind of monastic vocation. That by keeping me poor and consequently celibate, they were somehow helping me to keep some kind of vows. An info which I have my ideas on where they could have it from, but it was not from me, and it was not correct.
So, before you blame me for going public too soon, it is actually closer to my going public too late.
10:06 Just in case you are not very much into response material, I definitely do have other kinds of material too.
Which you as a YEC just might enjoy ... On "Creation vs. Evolution" you will find "Early human remains found to carry R1b"
It cites the archaeological part of the wiki on Haplogroup R1b, along with my recalibration of similar dates. Referring to a previous post.
So, Villabruna 1 is 14 000 BP, which is 12 000 BC.
This means it falls between the carbon dates associated with the real dates 2711 B. Chr. and 2688 B. Chr. (in a tired moment I found it annoying that "BC" tends to be pronounced "bee see" instead of "before Christ" so I made the abbreviation more explicit in that earlier post).*
Note, the Biblical chronology I use is that of the Roman Martyrology, not that of the Vulgate.
13:46 If you agree "PF" proves in a footnote that he's heretic, what keeps you in "una cum"?
As admitted, I have personal reasons against the SSPX, after trying from 2009 to into 2011 or 2012 to be a loyal parishioner, never adressing a sermon of St. Nic priests without deference of some kind ... simply being a bit generous about my erudition or a bit defensive of what they just possibly might have criticised in a very oblique manner ... but once I took my distance, what are you guys doing with "una cum"?
A Missal for England involving "una cum rege nostro" doesn't mean one can make it mean prayer for conversion of a heretic, that phrase was never used with any one who was currently Anglican, but for James VII and II, James VIII and III, Charles III (the real legitimate bearer of that name), none of whom were Anglican while claimant kings. It was not about praying in a very oblique way for the conversion of George III.
14:37 I think any claim anyone in SSPX from St. Nic in Paris could possibly have of stamping my blogs as slander, if that's the reason for their boycott, were just ruined by yourself.
And sure, St. Peter of Breitenbachplatz in Berlin and St. Joan of Arc in Bergerac are far better places when it comes to decent SSPX priests, but the cities are also far less good than Paris for my profession, which is writing.
14:47 "maybe he's the real Pope Michael"**
No, the Pope Michael died Aug. 2, a bit more than a year ago.
14:58 Do you know what really bothers me?
It's not Michael Lofton standing up for the guy he thinks is Pope. It's how "Pope Francis" is so generous in allowing him to fight his fights for him.
"PF" came out with a remark involving the wording "Pachamama" ... while Michael Lofton gives so much time to proving "PF" wasn't worshipping Pachamama. How if "PF" did even a few words about that same topic?
Michael Lofton thinks slander is so grave as to merit an injunction to repair, but I think scandal, when genuinely offered or taken, is that too.
When Pharisees pretended to be scandalised, Jesus called them hypocrites and spoke of double measures. When some say that they cannot accept "PF" as the Pope, "PF" generously allows Michael Lofton to do the fighting. Pope Michael did more to defend his position than "PF" to defend his ...
15:46 I am not quite sure I agree about Marcel Lefebvre not being comparable to Orthodox, about when they started to separate, but those are the problems the ex-Seminarian of Winona repaired when calling for an emergency conclave ...
18:47 "it comes from a sedevacantist blog"
Not mine, unless through very skewed reporting about it.
I did not find it on the other huge sede blog, Introibo.
SSPX has a page dealing among other things with the charge and I'll quote it:
At no point did the Archbishop himself ever say the New Mass. It appears that the calumny saying that he did has its origins in an unsubstantiated letter written by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, OP, on April 12, 1979. Fr. des Lauriers was a French theologian and professor who had formerly taught at the SSPX’s seminary in Écône, Switzerland until his embrace of sedevacantism in 1977. Not only did the Archbishop deny this charge, but it was refuted in detail by Jean Madiran in the May 1980 issue of the journal he founded, Itinéraires. Madiran called Lauriers out for his outrageous language against the Archbishop, namely, accusing him of being a traitor and another Pontius Pilate. However, he noted the claim that the Archbishop celebrated the New Mass from April, 1969, to December, 1971, as being the worst accusation of all. Madiran pointed out to Fr. Lauriers that the New Mass was not even permitted before November 1969, and that it was absurd to think that the Archbishop was such an enthusiast for the New Mass that he would have started celebrating it before everyone else.
In the end, when the Archbishop wrote to Fr. Lauriers to deny the charge, the latter wrote back to say that he was happy this was the case, but that the Archbishop had made certain gestures while celebrating the traditional Mass that made him think he was celebrating the New Mass. It was clear at this point that Fr. Lauriers’s original letter was a case of bad polemics.
It may be mentioned here, Pope Michael was fairly far from being an adherent to Fr. Lauriers, since the sedeprivationist thesis is precisely what has kept so many sedes back from an emergency conclave.
22:40
I began to attend RCIA classes in preparation for my conversion to Catholicism. On Easter Vigil of 2012, I was received into full-communion with the Catholic Church alongside my best friend JC Gaspard and his wife, who were on the same journey as I was.
Stated by Michael Lofton back in 2015.
22:38 Here is Michael Lofton criticising at least the reception of Vatican II:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG8X4D3SLLo
It is possible that he was at this point Eastern Orthodox (I'm technically biritualist : never abjured Catholicism while converting to Orthodoxy in 2006, never abjured Orthodoxy when converting back, specifically at first to SSPX).
But at this time he was clearly speaking with Ybarra about why Catholicism was right despite the post-Vatican II era.
And it is pretty obvious, if he was at this point Orthodox, it is because he had been led there by being, previously, as a Catholic, after 2012, a trad who found no good explanation within papacy for what was going on.
Also the case for some who remained Orthodox.
24:09 It is true that Taylor Marshall seems to have been a Catholic already in 2010, which I was too (if you count SSPX), which is two years before Michael Lofton's original conversion.
Checking wiki, yes, he even became Catholic in 2006 - same year I became Orthodox.
I originally became Catholic when I was twenty and Taylor Marshall ten years old, in 1988, and was basically unreservedly SSPX from 1993 to 2000. In 2000, I briefly took "we don't recommend anyone to assist the Novus Ordo" as "it may nevertheless be licit" ... until I became Palmarian.
Some might consider it was fairly many positions I went through, how do I keep track of them - simply a question of positions on whom I was to obey. My intellectual history on other matters is far less chaotic. And even that one might have been lots less chaotic, if SSPX had taken a decent attitude to me. One I could live by, while I was anyway obeying them.
24:28 Yeah, exactly. Lofton was, while still Orthodox, a rad trad. So, he did not lie about having been a rad trad.
He probably became Orthodox via rad trad. As, back in 2006, also I.
25:11 I get a feeling, Salza may have done a hatchet job about me.
Even if he didn't, I think others have taken that exact view on me.
Here is my response:
New blog on the kid : John Salza's Comment on "Lay Preachers" Changing Opinions
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/08/john-salzas-comment-on-lay-preachers.html
27:00 You seem to be discounting the time Michael Lofton was Trad prior to becoming Orthodox and kind of still while so?
Ybarra says Michael Lofton started the show while an Orthodox, and the first video I find on it is from Jan. 2019, where he and Ybarra are not very respectful to say the least about Vatican II, they kind of sound like Bishop Richard Williamson.
27:07 Oh, "when you apostatise" - is that how you feel about the Orthos?
Well, too bad, there are actual parallels between SSPX and them.
And the guys you consider as popes do not count them as non-Christians in the least.
But seriously, no, regaining grace revivifies old merits. Supposing either I or Michael Lofton were in mortal sin over that step.
"You start over" may very well apply to priest candidates, but neither I nor Michael Lofton are such. So that rule is highly irrelevant when it comes to judging lay essayists.
If your SSPX priest leads you to this kind of uncharitable nonsense, that's another perk for the late Pope Michael rejecting SSPX (without being disrespectful to the late Mgr Lefebvre, by the way).
29:20 When it comes to SSPX, of saying "una cum" with a man they don't obey, I don't just have "private judgement" to go on, but the verdict of Pope Michael.
Michael Lofton has less backing from "PF" on the issue. Clearly much less.
But how about looking at what Mortalium Animos actually says?
Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private*** judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."
Pope Pius XI was saying the rejection of Our Lady being invocable was a private judgement. Not that having an own opinion on who's pope or isn't when the question very obviously isn't fully clear, at least on your view who refuse to treat as Pope the man you called heretic .... not that having such an own opinion is wrong.
St. Vincent Ferrer had two opposed opinions on where the papacy was. a) Avignon, b) Rome. As I recall.
None of the examples cited would condemn the Orthodox.
32:19 Recognise and Resist ... do you recognise "Francis" as Pope? Yes. Habitually.
Do you resist his errors? Yes, equally habitually.
Unlike for instance St. Pascalis who first brought John XXII to a halt and ultimately to a death bed retraction about a view he had shared with ... Markos Evgenikos of Ephesus. The bishop who resisted an "invalid council" - of Florence.
32:36 Fr. Cekada, Pope Michael, myself, Michael Lofton ... the term has some pedigree.
If Zuhlsdorf thought the situation simple, like no one who isn't enthusiastically following at least the habitual guidelines of "PF" is a Catholic or anyway near, perhaps he might be in a position to denigrate sedes .... as it is, he isn't.
33:13 Look like they are moronS?
Hmmm ... Mt 5:22 actually is closer to speaking of telling a specific person he is a moron ... when it comes to the plural, Christ used it Himself, of Pharisees.
* This item: Early human remains found to carry R1b
** Or "the real Pope, Michael" - but the guy Kennedy Hall was speaking to was named Joe, so doesn't figure.
*** This is the one occurrence of the word "private" and therefore of the phrase "private judgement" in Mortalium Animos. Pope Pius XI doesn't say private judgement must never be used on any issue, he's saying one cannot have a Church where the validity or otherwise of child baptism is regarded as a matter of private judgement rather than common policy. Which is simply good sense. It's not a ban on having opinions, and even important ones, within the framework of the Catholic faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment