“The SSPX Worse Than Satanism!”

Go home, New Evangelization, you’re drunk.

Advertisements

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to “The SSPX Worse Than Satanism!”

  1. Tony Jokin says:

    Wow. I hope he was going for hyperbole but even then…..

  2. rubyroad2013 says:

    Was there something in the food at Canon Meney’s birthday dinner?ūüėú
    http://fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-work-of-cardinal-burke.html

  3. Murray (mgl) says:

    For those who’d rather not give Fr. Nicholson the pagehit, you can read the post here:

    http://unvis.it/fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/there-is-something-worse-than-black-mass.html

  4. Geez, even if I believed that SSPX mocks Jesus’ Mercy, I think you’d have to admit that Satanism mocks God’s Justice.

    So even if you were trying to argue this point, I think you’d be “more merciful” saying they were equal to each other. As it were.

  5. Mighty Joe Young says:

    Hey, in calling them Catholic Protestants he sort of stole my They are protestants in Fiddlebacks line.

    Can I sue?

  6. MJY, by all means! Things have been pretty slow around here!

  7. Tantumblogo says:

    Yeah, kind of interesting how twisted off two close associates of Michael Voris have gotten on this subject. Of course, Fr. Nicholson had to break all contact with Voris by episcopal decree before he, Fr. Nick, could start his freelance mission.

    I really don’t get it. To me, both he and JTC (frequent commenter at Fr. Nick’s and many trad blogs, always trashing SSPX) have just gone totally around the bend on this. What I don’t get is, why? It’s more than just charitable concern, it’s become an unhinged obsession. I cannot even mention the SSPX on my blog (far from endorsing them, but I also don’t castigate them) without JTC almost coming unglued over the fact. Isn’t Asperger’s treatable?

  8. Tony Jokin says:

    Tantumblogo,

    My guess is something like the following.

    All the traditional bent priests in the Catholic Church today realize that there is a problem with the high ranks in the Church. They have decided that putting a nice interpretation on what they see as problems is the best way to go about it. But then they see the SSPX that has chosen a different tactic and even reminding them how their nice interpretation on things isn’t really very good.

    In other words, groups like the SSPX or any traditionalist group (or individuals) that tends to point out problems with a wishful interpretation of what is coming out of the high ranks frustrates them. They are faced with either attacking the SSPX or admitting that their wishful interpretation is actually flawed.

    From what we see, they pick the first and go on a full blown attack at the SSPX or any traditionalist group that is pointing out problems. If you really think about it, there is some consistency in that they are going after everyone who they think is destroying their wishful interpretation. Another example of this policy in action is probably their condemnation of the “media” (interestingly, not so much for its promotion of immodesty, anti-Catholic bias, or perverted sexuality but) for challenging their wishful interpretation of the events taking place today.

    I understand that as Catholics, we must give the most positive interpretation toward ambiguous acts. But more often today, I feel that we first make statements or acts ambiguous by giving a stretched spin for what has taken place. In truth, those acts or sayings were never that ambiguous to begin with. But after creating some doubt, then we argue that the actions must be ambiguous because a stretched spin of events exist to justify an opposite interpretation from what it would naturally mean. To me, that feels like fooling oneself. Amidst all of this, none of those persons seems to think that perhaps it is time they expressed concern regarding the abundance of ambiguity in actions and words from those in authority. No, they seem to pretend that ambiguity is fine because we can put a positive interpretation on it.

  9. Tony Jokin says:

    By the way, just to clarify, I do not support or attend the SSPX method of resisting. At the same time, I do not like the way faithful men and women inside the Church have chosen to handle things. If one thinks that someone above their authority is unclear in their words and actions, they should at least raise their voice asking for clarity. Simply putting a positive spin on things is not really an answer. In fact, clarity can help the likes of those in the SSPX return to the Church by giving them reasons to trust those in authority in the Church today.

    So whether it be a controversy over Vatican II, Papal actions or anything else, the emphasis should be to those in authority to clarify. No point blaming the media, the SSPX, or rad-trads.

  10. Mighty Joe Young says:

    Extending symapthy to the protestants in Fiddlebacks is a bit like extending sympathy to those men who wore fatigues and demonstrated against the vietnam war while living in Canada,the crummy cold country they fled to once they were drafted; that is, like the draft dodgers, the sspx fled the battfield in a time of war even after their General had been given permission for his troops to exist as quiet consciententious objectors.

    In the fight or flight response, the sspx managed to do both; said otherwise, they got to have their Eucharist and eat it too.

  11. drprice2 says:

    I can’t imagine a better way to drum up sympathy for the Society than an insanely-over-the-top attack like this. Ultimately, I don’t find the SSPX’s arguments for its status convincing, but Nicholson’s shrieky invective is just bughouse.

  12. Dale:

    One word. “Clickbait”.

    Then again, he probably actually believes it. Sigh.

  13. drprice2 says:

    Yeah, I think he deeply believes it. Why he feels the need to go Full Spittle-Flecked Nutty is what I’m wondering about. The need to distinguish himself from “That Type” to his superiors?

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s