Author Topic: "Excuse me while I locate my local Novus Ordo church..." (Read 2906 times)

s2srea · « **on:** September 26, 2011, 09:54:39 AM »

I don't know if there's a philosophical or theological idea out there that puts into perspective those condemning mindset that many in tradition seem to articulate, unfortunately, quite well. I'm thinking of a certain thread here, which I will remain ambiguous about for now since Moderator seems, and I agree, to want to avoid any more accusatory messages, lest we lose all sense of Catholic finesse, of one attempting to make amends for specific sins as was instructed by his confessor.

So my question is: what is that that makes so many Trads seem less than charitable amongst each other? What caused Matt to use these words to make a point? What was he trying to say and why? Maybe if we answer this we can find a solution.

Here's a glimps of what I see...

I think part of the problem is quite easy to see. First, we're refugees. We've, quite confusingly, fled our motherland, 'Church', for our motherland, 'Church'. Its as if someone slipped a map over our ecclesial globe, and, regardless of what it was that caused us to look down and see under our feet, where we once saw labeled as the lands of Roman Catholic Church, we see, "New Church". We're all in the the position of now seeking out and reviving our Motherland Church.

Part of this process, as mentioned, involved some cause which led us to see that our home was infiltrated, to what degree we differ, but we all see an infiltrator. We must, of course, recognize him as such, and are bound, to a degree, when we recognize him, and warn others of his presence and call attention to what it is that makes him harmful; point out his flaws.

The last part is that we're in 'internet-land' much of what people write to each other here is quite unrealistic of what one would find in the real world. Some here are zealous, and their zealousness is beautiful, the their approach can sometimes be less than helpful, and possibly counter whatever goodness they wish to achieve. The same can be said of the opposite approach, but I'm speaking of "adversarial" correction for now.

This is all I can write for now, but I will be back to respond if you're interested enough to comment and can decipher anything I said :wink:

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** September 26, 2011, 10:22:00 AM »

This isn't an apology thread, so you can talk about whatever you want here...

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** September 26, 2011, 10:24:46 AM »

Another example --

Bringing up an old feud (un-answered arguments, unsettled questions/issues, expected apologies, etc.) in a thread discussing the death of a member's mother.

That is beyond tacky -- no atheist would find that acceptable.

Why is it considered "fair game" by ANY traditional Catholic? We're supposed to be the true followers of Jesus Christ, the salt of the earth, and an example for all those around us.

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Why is it considered "fair game" by ANY traditional Catholic? We're supposed to be the true followers of Jesus Christ, the salt of the earth, and an example for all those around us.

I think its because its too easy to be distracted in our world with the wrong things. Take Hobbledehoy for example. The guy is one of the most, if not the most, intelligent and learned persons here- hands down; (Phyrros is also right there with him). What does he focus on? SSPX Vs. CMRI (etc.) debates? Sede Vs. Non-Sede? Nope. Read his posts. He's all about the interior life. He is someone who we should really imitate; at least, he's someone I try to imitate. But people are so ready to be able to defend their 'sides'. I know this issue keeps coming up, but it keeps happening on this forum.

s2srea · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:48:04 PM »

:kick-can:
I would also like to add Hobble is a sede, and I am not (though I consider myself a Agnostic Sedevacantist). Again, I don't see the need for sides, though I do understand why they exist (and their cheerleaders too ha)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:52:07 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Again, I don't see the need for sides, though I do understand why they exist (and their cheerleaders too ha)

Yes they exist, and I think you will see the need for them when you consider that many trads treat sedes as though they were heretics. That's pretty serious. I'm against the "dogmatic sedevacantists" but it isn't hard to understand why they take such a position when people who are sedes are treated the way they are.

There's something seriously wrong about Trads that are desperate to claim that Benedict XVI is not a heretic while at the same time treating sedes as heretics. Why do they try to please the former and virtually anathematize with their words and actions the latter?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:54:06 PM »

Fleeing from strife and discord may be salutary at times but there is a need to settle certain issues - and those issues can't be solved without conflict and strife.

s2srea · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:58:45 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Yes they exist, and I think you will see the need for them when you consider that many trads treat sedes as though they were heretics. That's pretty serious. I'm against the "dogmatic sedevacantists" but it isn't hard to understand why they take such a position when people who are sedes are treated the way they are.

Yes, but you're still skidding the argument. The fact is is that 'all' sides should be done away with, to an extent. This doesn't mean people can not have an opinion, either way, on the issues at hand. But to use them to divide us, is wrong. Sure, non-sedes have treated sede's as heretics. Thats wrong. Sede's have wrongly treated non-sedes as heretics. And thats wrong too. So does it end, or do you keep pointing out the wrongdoings of some, to allow the bickering to continue?

s2srea · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:04:10 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Fleeing from strife and discord may be salutary at times but there is a need to settle certain issues - and those issues can't be solved without conflict and strife.

I'm only trying to recognize those issues which wouldn't be settled by 'us'. The problem is with most people, they try to settle the larger issues at hand, and create more problems and issues for themselves which cause strife and discord unnecessarily.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:12:54 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Yes, but you're still skidding the argument. The fact is is that 'all' sides should be done away with, to an extent. This doesn't mean people can not have an opinion, either way, on the issues at hand. But to use them to divide us, is wrong.

There are consequences to having the two alternatives that aren't just theoretical. You have the attitude of the SSPX leadership which really seems to be the source of most of this division.

Quote

So does it end, or do you keep pointing out the wrongdoings of some, to allow the bickering to continue?

Well, saying that we can't know the answer or that it doesn't really matter doesn't solve the problem. To me it is telling that those who most stridently defend those who treat sedes with intolerance in the SSPX use such statements to try to placate those with nagging questions. It is self-contradictory to do so.

Just as it is self-contradictory to say that Cardinal Ratzinger was "Prefect without Faith" but to then say that his papacy cannot be questioned.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:15:09 PM »

I will just say this as to those who are against discussion of the issue as being divisive.

You don't often see sedes telling people not to read SSPX materials. I've never seen it.

Yet you see the SSPX telling people to avoid various sede websites.

It is because of the inherent weakness of the SSPX position that they take such an attitude.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:30:35 PM »

This right here is an example of the SSPX apologetics contradicting itself:

Quote

But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.

So first they say that St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion cannot be applied because of the facts. Yet I'm sure the quotations of Archbishop Lefebvre could be multiplied that show that judgments as to the departure of John Paul II from the Faith. (and Bishop Tissier can say that Introduction to Christianity contains many heresies.)

Quote

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

Note that when they refer to Suarez and Billuart they just use the word heretic, not manifest heretic.

So, they just throw out St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion, in effect saying that the Church would have to depose a heretical Pope. That the Pope would continue with jurisdiction until the bishops deposed him. That of course contradicts St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the jurisdiction would be lost automatically. It really is an absurd position. If a Pope publicly apostasizes then he would continue to have jurisdiction until the bishops announced it?

These apologetics are blatantly self-contradictory. There's no winning an argument with sophists. No point in arguing, because the premises are shifted according to circuмstance.

Quote

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.3

That contradicts St. Robert Bellarmine. We are supposed to believe that St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion has not been the most widely accepted? It's nonsense.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:34:17 PM »

There is a problem with telling people the question doesn't really matter to one's salvation but acting as though it matters immensely. (the SSPX does this)

It's like telling someone to accept injustice while being responsible for that injustice.

Telling someone to forgive while denying that they were ever wronged.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:48:12 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

There are consequences to having the two alternatives that aren't just theoretical. You have the attitude of the SSPX leadership which really seems to be the source of most of this division.

If you can only see my position as being with the SSPX attitude (which I politely disagree with), then I would suggest you look again at what the source of this division is again, and re-read my earlier posts here. You are exemplifying that division which I am attempting to speak against. Really read what I have to say.

Quote

Well, saying that we can't know the answer or that it doesn't really matter doesn't solve the problem.

Again, I think you're having a hard time following me; maybe thats my fault. I'm saying we cant solve the larger problem at hand (sede-vs non-sede), but when we try, it causes division which is non-essential.

Quote

To me it is telling that those who most stridently defend those who treat sedes with intolerance in the SSPX use such statements to try to placate those with nagging questions. It is self-contradictory to do so.

You're drawing conclusions waaaay too fast here. I'm not telling anyone, anything, nor am I defending anyone's actions. Re-read what I said, and see if you can be a little more objective bud.

Quote

Just as it is self-contradictory to say that Cardinal Ratzinger was "Prefect without Faith" but to then say that his papacy cannot be questioned.

And with this, I'm thoroughly confused.

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** September 26, 2011, 06:50:18 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Telling someone to forgive while denying that they were ever wronged.

That's funny, I though Christ himself exemplified this beautifully.