She's OK with Vatican II, I'm a Conclavist. First an afterthought from today, then my original comments from yesterday. But even before that, her video.
SSPX Extremes | FORWARD BOLDLY
Christine Niles | 30 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQuhPuxWqZA
You considered it a kind of dissimulation to not include the position on the Mass into the Creed.
But a position is not a dogma or even an inherited ecclesial doctrine.
It is dogma or doctrine that Babel happened as described in Genesis 11. It is my position that this temporally happened in 401 after the Flood, not 101 or 529/531 as other text versions would indicate, and that that is 2557 BC. It is my position that this corresponds in carbon dating to c. 8000 BC. It is my position that this geographically was Göbekli Tepe. It is my position that Nimrod intended a space rocket, not some kind of skyscraper. It is my position that bricks for stones and slime for mortar describe slightly different materials, but the words were reused for what we refer to as bricks and bitumen.
Each of these positions could be false, even if I don't think any of them actually is false. But the falsification of any of these would not in the least involve falsifying the doctrinal position that Genesis 11 is history. Nimrod in some way tried to reach heaven and didn't have the means to do so, he forced all the human population to cooperate with his project and God liberated them from that by miraculously exchanging the linguistic content in the formed language capacities of adults. Each knew one language, like I know more or less 8, dialects of Germanic and Latin. Each went to bed knowing the same language and they rose next morning knowing different ones (as if tomorrow I didn't understand a bit of Germanic or Latin, but knew Chinese, Japanese, Cantonese instead, examples of languages I don't know). This would be true even if each of my positions were wrong.
I put my positions into essays, I'd not include them in a creed, even if I had the authority or task imposed by an authority to formulate one.
5:30 What exact year is this page from?
Bc I had heard "we will never recommend anyone to go to the new mass" ... and "often at risk of invalidity" before I attended reverend Novus Ordo by a priest ordained before the changes in a time and place where a TLM specifically from them was inaccessible.
6:49 Indeed.
The only logical options are:
- Novus Ordo is valid and licit
- not valid or at least not licit since St. Paul VI, prisoner in the Vatican; acted under duress (position of Palmarians)
- not valid or at least not licit since Montini was not validly Pope and neither was V-II a Council. (position of Sedevacantists and Conclavists)
7:45 Your beef, as OK with Vatican II, and our beef, as Conclavists, and their beef as Sedevacantists, with SSPX is the same.
Pope Michael I called it "pope-sifting"
11:01 In other words, they are in the canonical position of Abbot Schachleiter if he wanted to celebrate Mass in a Church in Munich outside his monastery (I'm not sure whether his faculties in the monastery depended on the bishop or the abbatial arrangement).
The withdrawal of faculties was bc of his personal friendship to Hitler. Taken to allowing him to assist Mass (he was, like other highranking NSDAP, excommunicated by German bishops). However, he didn't take it to allowing Hitler to get absolved or receive Holy Communion.
As a Conclavist, I pretty much agree with [Salza's] assessment on SSPX, though I have been cirkling around that position about half of my life. I take his position as less reasonable about Conclavism or Cum ex Apostolatus ...
19:07 Truth ... it was back at Novus Ordo (reverent, by a priest ordained before the change of rite) that I heard of CCC §283.
In 1991, when I was more like Ecclesia Dei, CCC was not there.
In 1992, when I got to SSPX, I had so much other stuff, I vaguely heard about it.
Only in Malmö, 2001, did I hear about CCC § 283. Not by the old priest. But it was still in a Catechism, or what purported to be such. Prior to this, in all of my conversion (Christmas 1984 to Pentecost or Easter Tide 1988), in my turning to Ecclesia Dei and to SSPX, no priest had ever asked me to treat Young Earth Creationism as an error. Or Geocentrism, though it wasn't sth I held yet.
Here the logical alternatives are:
- the Church and even Jesus got it wrong for near 2000 years, until John Paul II corrected things in 1992
- Wojtyla was not the Pope.
If you think "tertium datur" please spell it out. As far as I know, Salza is not keen on CCC § 283 either, but he can afford what I can't afford, or couldn't afford over decades, being accepted in a NO parish while decrying Old Earth as an actual religious error ... and by now Heliocentrism as one.
No comments:
Post a Comment