Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on March 10, 2012, 06:56:15 AM
-
For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.
In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.
For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):
Number CCXLIII (243) 10 March 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TURNING POINT
Speaking in the USA last month on Rome-SSPX relations, the Society of St Pius X’s Superior General said that some practical agreement between the two might be possible if Rome would accept the SSPX as it is, and he quoted the Archbishop as having often said that such an arrangement would be acceptable. However, Bishop Fellay did add that the last time that the Archbishop said this was in 1987. This little addition is highly significant, and it deserves to be dwelt on, especially for a younger generation that may be unfamiliar with the historic drama of the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988.
In fact the drama of dramas, without which the SSPX would never even have come into existence, was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), at which the large majority of the world’s Catholic bishops signed on to that “up-dating” of the Church by which they split their Catholic authority from the truth of Catholic Tradition. From that point on, Catholics had to choose between Authority and Truth. To this day, if they choose Authority, they must long for Truth, and if they choose Truth, they still yearn for union with Authority. Archbishop Lefebvre chose Truth, which is why he founded the SSPX in 1970 to defend it, but for as long as possible he did all in his power to heal its split with Authority by striving to obtain Rome’s approval for his Society. That is why Bishop Fellay is right to say that until 1987 the Archbishop repeatedly wished and worked for some practical agreement with Rome.
However, by 1987 the Archbishop was 82 years old. He foresaw that without its own bishops, the SSPX’s stand for Tradition must come to an end. It was becoming urgent to obtain from Rome at least one bishop, but Rome stalled, surely because it too was well aware that the SSPX without its own bishop would die a lingering death. The resolute stalling of then Cardinal Ratzinger in May of 1988 made it clear to the Archbishop that neo-modernist Rome had no intention of protecting or approving of Catholic Tradition. So the time for diplomacy was over, and he went ahead with the Episcopal Consecrations. From then on, he said, it was to be doctrine or nothing. From then on the absolutely necessary prelude to any contacts between Rome and the SSPX, he said, would be Rome’s profession of Faith in the great anti-liberal docuмents of Catholic Tradition, e.g. Pascendi, Quanta Cura,etc..
And that is why, as Bishop Fellay implied on February 2, never again until his death in 1991 was the great Archbishop heard to say that some practical agreement might be possible or desirable. Himself he had gone as far as he could to obtain from Authority the minimum requirements of Truth. He even once suggested that he had in May of 1988 gone too far. But from the Consecrations onwards he never wavered or compromised, and he urged his Society to take the same line.
Has the situation changed since then? Has Rome returned to the profession of the Faith of all time? One might think so when Bishop Fellay informs us in the same sermon that Rome has modified its harsh position of September 14, and declares itself now willing to accept the SSPX as is. But one need only recall Assisi III and the Newbeatification of John-Paul II to suspect that behind the Roman churchmen’s new-found benevolence towards the SSPX lies in all likelihood a reliance on the euphoria of re-established and prolonged mutual contact to dilute, wash out and eventually dissolve the SSPX’s so far obstinate resistance to their Newchurch. Alas.
“Our help is in the name of the Lord.”
Kyrie eleison
-
I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.
In his Feb. 2 sermon (http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_february_2_2012.htm), he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.
I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?
-
I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.
In his Feb. 2 sermon (http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_february_2_2012.htm), he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.
I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?
You are missing the other part of the sermon where he says he is ready to accept a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached.
How could you listen to the sermon and read Bishop WIlliamson's article, yet miss that????
....unless you want to miss that :scratchchin:
-
I guess I don't what the issue is as regards +Williamson vs +Fellay vs +Lefebvre...... nor do I agree that Bishop Fellay is ready to give in so long as Rome remains in error.
In his Feb. 2 sermon (http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_february_2_2012.htm), he says: The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine..........................And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.
I mean, he comes out and says the problem is with doctrine and that's why he won't sign - so what is it that I am missing?
You are missing the other part of the sermon where he says he is ready to accept a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached.
How could you listen to the sermon and read Bishop WIlliamson's article, yet miss that????
....unless you want to miss that :scratchchin:
I did not listen to the sermon, I only read the link. Still, what about the part I quoted and bolded?
I have a slow internet connection and will try to download then listen to the sermon now.
-
This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."
So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.
-
But earlier in the same sermon, he also said
"Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church's whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. Clearly. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.
It is kind of hard to tell what would be acceptible situation for ABL to reconcile with Rome.
-
I don't know JMartyr, I don't think he's necessarily saying that they would ought-right accept a deal. He's responding to the question which was posed to him. He was responding to the "What if...", and saying, "well I'd like to see that happen first, then we can discuss what we would do."
And the disparity between +Fellay and +Williamson is how they play out the answer to what they do. +Fellay seems eager to just have gotten them to finally consider accepting the SSPX. +Williamson is not so ready to be taken into a fold, who only wants to accept them in the name of false Ecuмenism- the same way Paul VI accepted the Fenneyites under the same pretense; they want unity with the society, but its only because they want unity with everyone. And he is more wary of what may happen in the future, it seems. The purity of the lineage of the Lefebvre bishops must be kept safe. With the apparently new laxed scrutiny of the validity of ordinations of those priests who join the SSPX from the NO, I don't think this concern is unfounded.
-
This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."
So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.
IMO, +ABL was probably just being sarcastic, perhaps presenting a challenge of sorts. He knew, better than probably anyone else, that by Rome embracing modernism became not merely non-traditional, but vehemently anti-tradition.
As such, he rightly believed such a thing as a traditionalist Bishop would not be coming out of modernist Rome in his life time, and personally, I highly doubt +ABL would have signed anything without the doctrinal issues first being settled ------the thing is, in order for that to happen, Rome will need to admit to new teachings since V2 - for *that* to happen, Rome would need to acknowledge the traditional teachings............won't happen as long as modernism is the rule.
-
This is from ABL two years after the consecrations.
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop."
So IMHO, this sounds like a reconciliation could have been reached without Rome renouncing their revolution.
IMO, +ABL was probably just being sarcastic, perhaps presenting a challenge of sorts. He knew, better than probably anyone else, that by Rome embracing modernism became not merely non-traditional, but vehemently anti-tradition.
As such, he rightly believed such a thing as a traditionalist Bishop would not be coming out of modernist Rome in his life time, and personally, I highly doubt +ABL would have signed anything without the doctrinal issues first being settled ------the thing is, in order for that to happen, Rome will need to admit to new teachings since V2 - for *that* to happen, Rome would need to acknowledge the traditional teachings............won't happen as long as modernism is the rule.
[/quot
1) This line of discussion misses the point of the thread;
2) The thread regards the contradiction of principles between Archbishop Lefebvre, post-1988 (i.e., No practical solution until the doctrinal questions are resolved)
3) And Bishop Fellay (i.e., We are ready to take a deal from Rome even though none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved).
4) Here you have Bishop Williamson pointing out this contradiction himself.
5) Not sure what is left to be said.
-
1) This line of discussion misses the point of the thread;
2) The thread regards the contradiction of principles between Archbishop Lefebvre, post-1988 (i.e., No practical solution until the doctrinal questions are resolved)
3) And Bishop Fellay (i.e., We are ready to take a deal from Rome even though none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved).
4) Here you have Bishop Williamson pointing out this contradiction himself.
5) Not sure what is left to be said.
Ok, I see what I missed...............First, +Fellay says:And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that.
He then goes on to say........ We agree with the principle but we see that the conclusion is contrary. Great mystery! Great mystery! So what is going to happen now? Well, we have sent our answer to Rome. They still say that they’re reflecting on it, which means they’re probably embarrassed. At the same time I think we may see now what they really want. Do they really want us in the Church or not? We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready. But if you want us to accept these things, we are not. In fact we have just quoted Archbishop Lefebvre who said this already in 1987 – several times before, but the last time he said it was in 1987.
I just kept missing it - {slaps forehead with palm}
Ok, your 2, 3 and 4 are spot on - sorry I missed your points earlier. Although I'm not sure what the actual "deal" would be - I mean, seems to me that the SSPX will remain doing the same thing they've always done in the same chapels, seminaries etc. Pretty much is like telling Rome that they are not going to do anything different than they've been doing - - -- "if you want us, that's how you'll take us". Is that a bad thing?
One one hand, SSPX will not be signing anything that says they accept the errors. This is good.
OTOH, if SSPX remains "as they are", they'll agree to be regularized officially with modernist Rome. I don't know but seems pretty unlikely Rome will agree. Not sure what difference it will make either way - other than to possibly show the unknowing world that the SSPX now accepts the NO.
-
If you read the very detailed account of the signing and then rejection of the Protocol on May 5, 1988 as presented in the book Archbishop Lefebvre and The Vatican by Fr. Laisney (Angelus Press), the Archbishop writes to Cardinal Ratzinger on May 6, 1988, "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol...However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." [The proposed June date was rejected]. "Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure [of approving the candidates] so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June. In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations ..." So was the Archbishop being deceptive in telling Rome that the reason for his rejection of communion was about the Consecrations, and not about the faith?
In July 1988, the Archbishop recalled to a reporter for 30 Days magazine that he had originally signed the Protocol with extreme distrust. In his interview with 30 Days, as well as his letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, his reasons for not accepting communion with Rome were not based on the erroneous interpretations and implementations of V2. Rather, he distrusted that the Rome of 'dirty tricks' including those leveled on Fr. Augustine of Flavigny, the closing of the Roman seminaries including Mater Ecclesiae, the letter of Abbe Carlo, etc, would work to undermine the canonical structure proposed in the Protocol. He also mentions Assisi and the visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє as indications of deception.
For the Archbishop, it appears that his "trigger" to indicate Rome's readiness to begin the return to tradition was the granting of the episcopal consecrations. Perhaps he felt that this is what would eventually lead to a restoration of the faith? He does not mention, anywhere in his account, that dogmatic issues were the cause of his rejection of communion.
So, in my humble opinion, Bishop Fellay is following Archbishop Lefebvre lead to the tee when he proclaims 'take us as we are'. The result may be that eventually everyone is excommunicated again in a dry martyrdom defending the faith. But that is the price one must be willing to pay.
-
So, in my humble opinion, Bishop Fellay is following Archbishop Lefebvre lead to the tee when he proclaims 'take us as we are'. The result may be that eventually everyone is excommunicated again in a dry martyrdom defending the faith. But that is the price one must be willing to pay.
This is pretty much to be expected IMO as well.
-
For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.
In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.
For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):
What you seem to fail to realize is the material difference between what Rome is offering now and what it offered ABL when he was alive. He in fact signed a protocol which, if Bishop Fellay signed the same docuмent now, would be viewed as tantamount to betrayal today. Have you ever read that protocol? In fact, the only reason why he repudiated it was the fact that Rome delayed regarding the consecration of an SSPX bishop. Compare that protocol with what Rome offers now, a no stings attached juridical accomodation without the slightest compromise regarding doctrine.
He offered no immutable "principles" regarding this matter unless you would describe "talking doctrine" as a principle. In that case, that principle has been maintained. I'm not sure what you are so afraid of; its as if you think that legal recognition will act like coodies, infecting the SSPX priests, as if they are so weak-minded, that they will turn into novus ordo priests given time. The only principles that ABL did lay out was that which pertained to the formation of priests. And that is what the SSPX has maintained throughout, the most important principle of all.
Now I do agree that intimate cooperation with novus ordo priests could have a detrimental effect, but a legal recognition doesn't amount to such behavior. The priests of the society are anti-liberal, they publicly refute error and they do not consort with N.O. priests or bishops. On the other hand, the FSSP does not publicly refute error and regularly mingle with N.O. priests. Consequently, they are in grave danger of being perverted as many of them are, while some are not. A priest who does not actively condemn error, will eventually succuмb today. And this is true of the SSPX. The day they stop condemning error, become less anti-liberal, is they day the SSPX will be neutered. This won't come about based on a mere "legal recognition" but for other unrelated reasons.
So I would suggest that you step back, take a deep breath and liberate yourself from a form of intellectual paralysis. Have a little confidence in the SSPX priests and bishops, while remaining cautious, reserved and watchful as Bishop Williamson does.
-
Well I can't argue with that
-
For some time I have attempted to point out to certain readers that the overriding principle of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to signing a practical accord with Rome was that there should be no such agreement until the doctrinal issues were first resolved.
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
I then pointed out that Bishop Fellay, despite his assertion of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, was actually contradicting them, as evinced by his Feb 2 sermon at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in which he stated his readiness to accept a deal with Rome, despite the fact that (in his own words!) none of the doctrinal issues have been resolved.
In other words, he is paying mere lip service to the principles of ABL so as to not alienate a certain percentage of parishioners and clergy (mainly Anglo-Saxon), while himself embarking upon a different course for the SSPX than the one ABL laid out for it, for the good of souls and Church.
For all you who pretended Archbishop Lefebvre never had such a requirement, here it is in Bishop WIlliamson's latest column (Titled "Turning Point" referring to this new change of direction under Bishop Fellay):
What you seem to fail to realize is the material difference between what Rome is offering now and what it offered ABL when he was alive. He in fact signed a protocol which, if Bishop Fellay signed the same docuмent now, would be viewed as tantamount to betrayal today. Have you ever read that protocol? In fact, the only reason why he repudiated it was the fact that Rome delayed regarding the consecration of an SSPX bishop. Compare that protocol with what Rome offers now, a no stings attached juridical accomodation without the slightest compromise regarding doctrine.
He offered no immutable "principles" regarding this matter unless you would describe "talking doctrine" as a principle. In that case, that principle has been maintained. I'm not sure what you are so afraid of; its as if you think that legal recognition will act like coodies, infecting the SSPX priests, as if they are so weak-minded, that they will turn into novus ordo priests given time. The only principles that ABL did lay out was that which pertained to the formation of priests. And that is what the SSPX has maintained throughout, the most important principle of all.
Now I do agree that intimate cooperation with novus ordo priests could have a detrimental effect, but a legal recognition doesn't amount to such behavior. The priests of the society are anti-liberal, they publicly refute error and they do not consort with N.O. priests or bishops. On the other hand, the FSSP does not publicly refute error and regularly mingle with N.O. priests. Consequently, they are in grave danger of being perverted as many of them are, while some are not. A priest who does not actively condemn error, will eventually succuмb today. And this is true of the SSPX. The day they stop condemning error, become less anti-liberal, is they day the SSPX will be neutered. This won't come about based on a mere "legal recognition" but for other unrelated reasons.
So I would suggest that you step back, take a deep breath and liberate yourself from a form of intellectual paralysis. Have a little confidence in the SSPX priests and bishops, while remaining cautious, reserved and watchful as Bishop Williamson does.
And what you fail to realize is that ABL was not concerned with getting an offer from Rome, but in their conversion.
That is why he insisted on their conversion before talking about deals.
Bishop Fellay has other ideas (which he has been working on for 10+ years).
-
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
Seraphim,
See my post at the top of page two. The historical record does not support your premise. The Archbishop, in his own words, was prepared to sign the deal without a conversion.
-
The SSPX leadership has for several years now preached that a canonical agreement without a resolution to the doctrinal differences is out of the picture. Now the SSPX leadership is singing a different tune. Bishop Fellay did not explain himself as to why the strategy has now changed. Can we get that from him, please? Or did he explain himself already and I just missed it?
-
The SSPX leadership has for several years now preached that a canonical agreement without a resolution to the doctrinal differences is out of the picture. Now the SSPX leadership is singing a different tune. Bishop Fellay did not explain himself as to why the strategy has now changed. Can we get that from him, please? Or did he explain himself already and I just missed it?
I can only guess but his reticence was due to a concern that the SSPX could not be adequately protected from a backlash of Bishops who might penalize or even excommunicate within their diocese or in the reporting structure set up for the Society. Maybe he now knows something that makes him more comfortable in that regard?
Also, if Rome is completely capitulating to the Society and not requiring them to affirm any modern docuмents, then perhaps H.E. sees this as an opportune time to regularize. If one believes that Benedict is not an anti-pope, there would be little reason to refuse regularization with the Vicar of Christ without a direct compromise on faith or morals, IMHO.
Of course, all this is conjecture since H.E. doesn't discuss these matters with me.
-
Bishop Fellay should make his reasons public for changing the strategy. Priests and faithful alike have given their blood, sweat, and tears to the SSPX under the understanding that the leadership was following a particular agenda. Since that agenda has now changed, Bishop Fellay should explain himself.
-
I guess the great mystery for those of us who are NOT in the SSPX is..........WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE CHURCH OF THE BEAST?
If Rome is going to loose the faith and become the "Seat of Antichrist" as Our Lady told us over 100 years ago............why would you want to be part of the seat of antichrist?
:scratchchin:
-
I think if I was a priest within the SSPX I would be quite worried, to the point of summoning up the courage to personally write my bishop a letter asking what his real agenda is. One of the most difficult tests of the Faith would be to have to choose between obedience to your Bishop and to Tradition, should Bishop Fellay agree to something unpalatable. Most priests are not that strong.
As a paritioner, however, I am less worried because my contingency planning includes the total unavailability of a valid mass and sacraments (obviously to be avoided as far as possible). This is unlikely, and underscores what is most important: valid sacraments and Apostolic succession. Everything else is mere politics.
-
I guess the great mystery for those of us who are NOT in the SSPX is..........WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE CHURCH OF THE BEAST?
If Rome is going to loose the faith and become the "Seat of Antichrist" as Our Lady told us over 100 years ago............why would you want to be part of the seat of antichrist?
:scratchchin:
I think the confusion needs to be cleared up is all. Bishop Fellay said the SSPX would not reconcile to the error - "And that’s why we were obliged to say no. We’re not going to sign that."
He then goes on to say........ "Do they really want us in the Church or not? We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready. But if you want us to accept these things, we are not."
Seems clear enough that he's telling Rome to do whatever it is that makes Rome happy - whatever Rome does, the SSPX will remain "as is".
People are thinking that Rome will oblige the SSPX and regularize them even though they blatantly reject the doctrine of modernism of V2. If Rome accepted such a condition at all, it would only be for some devious purpose. If they can reject the council yet still get regularized, that's not SSPX reconciling with Rome - I'm not exactly sure wth it is, but it's not that.
Since V2, there is really only one thing that Rome has held to be absolutely and unquestionably sacred - that thing is the Second Vatican Council - which the SSPX blatantly rejects - so why are people thinking there will be any real reconciliation at all?
Forgetting for the moment that it is Rome who is supposed to be making the rules here, it seems more likely to me that Rome will excommunicate and declare SSPX to be in schism for rejecting "the almighty council". OTOH, if Rome bows to SSPX and regularizes them "as is", I don't see how their current status will change in any way other than on paper, I certainly don't see it as SSPX becoming a part of the NO.
What am I missing?
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
-
Bishop Fellay should make his reasons public for changing the strategy. Priests and faithful alike have given their blood, sweat, and tears to the SSPX under the understanding that the leadership was following a particular agenda. Since that agenda has now changed, Bishop Fellay should explain himself.
The "agenda" of the SSPX is to train traditional priests and all that entails. What other agenda do they have? Which "agenda" have we given our blood, sweat and tears? One that you are making up or exaggerating? Your opinion on a prudential matter? I think not.
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
And YOU know where the Church is?
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
If I thought the Seat was vacant, I'd probably agree with your original post.
The SSPX does know where the Church is and as far as anyone is able too make any sense at all of this crisis, he explained it this way................We are not an independent group. Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome. And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic. Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out. And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better! Look at the Protestants, how they open the churches to them. To us, they close them. And we say, we don’t care. We do things in front of God. We suffer from the Church, fine. We don’t like that, of course. But we ought to stay there in the truth. And we have to maintain that we do belong to the Church. We are Catholics. We want to be and we want to stay Catholic, and it is very important to maintain that.
It seems obvious to me that the jist of it is this..........the SSPX will remain "as is" whether they are regularized, not regularized or declared to be in schism - or slandered with some other lie. When it comes right down to it, as long as the SSPX remains "as is" no matter what happens, then the SSPX is in a no lose situation and therein lies hope for both them and Rome.
Based mostly on what I've seen in my life time, I'm of the opinion that modernist Rome cannot be trusted at all and once the NO can figure out what will ultimately cause the most destruction, then that will be what Rome will finally offer as an ultimatum.
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
-
Bishop Fellay should make his reasons public for changing the strategy. Priests and faithful alike have given their blood, sweat, and tears to the SSPX under the understanding that the leadership was following a particular agenda. Since that agenda has now changed, Bishop Fellay should explain himself.
The "agenda" of the SSPX is to train traditional priests and all that entails. What other agenda do they have? Which "agenda" have we given our blood, sweat and tears? One that you are making up or exaggerating? Your opinion on a prudential matter? I think not.
I am obviously referring to the plan in regards to relations with Rome. I am not making anything up. The SSPX leadership has been preaching for several years that there will be no canonical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved. The leadership has now changed that and made it public on Feb. 2/12 through Bishop Fellay. He should be explaining why he has made such a change.
-
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
Seraphim,
See my post at the top of page two. The historical record does not support your premise. The Archbishop, in his own words, was prepared to sign the deal without a conversion.
Vinny
Please take it up with Bishop Williamson
Obviously, you make too much of the quote you provided.
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
-
Maybe it's all about money and real estate?
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Uh....no.
I child who continually disobeys his parents does not imply his refusal to recognize their authority over him.
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Uh....no.
I child who continually disobeys his parents does not imply his refusal to recognize their authority over him.
Your sentence did not make sense.
Secondly, what you wrote has no basis in Church teaching.
Perhaps you could quote some canon law to back it up.
-
The conversion of Rome was the prerequisite to signing a deal.
Seraphim,
See my post at the top of page two. The historical record does not support your premise. The Archbishop, in his own words, was prepared to sign the deal without a conversion.
Vinny
Please take it up with Bishop Williamson
Obviously, you make too much of the quote you provided.
I don't dispute that H.E. is doing a bit of revisionist history.
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Uh....no.
I child who continually disobeys his parents does not imply his refusal to recognize their authority over him.
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying?
All Catholics must believe the public heretic is our Father? A valid Pope is our Father even if he is impure and lives an immoral lifestyle. Even if he gets in fist fights in dark alleys or runs a prostitution ring. But not if he teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts? A schismatic, heretic or apostate, at least public ones cannot be our Father.
Do you understand what I am saying? Can you see the distinction?
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Uh....no.
I child who continually disobeys his parents does not imply his refusal to recognize their authority over him.
Your sentence did not make sense.
Secondly, what you wrote has no basis in Church teaching.
Perhaps you could quote some canon law to back it up.
Replace "I" with "A"
Then recognize it is sedevacantist that has no place in Catholic theology.
Then, please go to the library on this forum and read the article called The 1988 Consecrations: On The Doctrine of Necessity."
Then please let me know if you are still unable to distinguish between disobedience and schism.
If so, I will have you correspond with my 9 year old until you understand it.
He can also explain the doctrine of necessity to you while he is at it.
-
..We are not an independent group.
In what way are they dependent on authority they reject?
Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.
You're doing one or the other. This isn't "resisting to the face" - this goes way beyond that.
And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic.
I should hope so.
Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.
They did kick you out and then they lifted the excommunication. What are they doing now, and how is it in response to what you are doing?
And we see it would be much easier for us to be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much better!
This is nonsense. If the SSPX were openly sede, they would not be treated better. Rome treats Protestants and Jєωs with more deference than traditional Catholics because Rome is against Catholic tradition.
Yes, Tele, again you are coming out with a lot of good points.
Recognise and resist is just nonsense.
It is unCatholic and illogical.
Sedevacantism is a Catholic response to the evil of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Uh....no.
I child who continually disobeys his parents does not imply his refusal to recognize their authority over him.
Your sentence did not make sense.
Secondly, what you wrote has no basis in Church teaching.
Perhaps you could quote some canon law to back it up.
Replace "I" with "A"
Then recognize it is sedevacantist that has no place in Catholic theology.
Then, please go to the library on this forum and read the article called The 1988 Consecrations: On The Doctrine of Necessity."
Then please let me know if you are still unable to distinguish between disobedience and schism.
If so, I will have you correspond with my 9 year old until you understand it.
He can also explain the doctrine of necessity to you while he is at it.
You posted a sentence that made no sense.
Secondly, what you wrote had no basis in Church teaching.
I requested that you quote some canon law to back up whatever it was that you were failing to prove.
You then failed to quote canon law, and instead responded with childish insults and ad hominem.
I ask again: Give a quote from the Code of Canon Law to back up whatever you were trying to say.
-
We are still waiting for that quote from the Code of Canon Law, Seraphim.
-
We are still waiting, Seraphim.
-
We are still waiting, Seraphim.
Sede-
Turns out you were right.
There really is no difference between disobedience and schism.
Thanks for enlightening me!
Man, I really owe you one!
And here I thought there was a difference.
How silly of me.
Why, all I had to do was open a code of canon law to see there was no difference.
Ps: do you require regular use of smelling salts?
Seraphim
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying?
All Catholics must believe the public heretic is our Father? A valid Pope is our Father even if he is impure and lives an immoral lifestyle. Even if he gets in fist fights in dark alleys or runs a prostitution ring. But not if he teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts? A schismatic, heretic or apostate, at least public ones cannot be our Father.
Do you understand what I am saying? Can you see the distinction?
I do understand what you're saying and the distinction you're making.
What I'm saying is is that the default Catholic position is to claim the man who sits in the Chair of Peter is the Pope. Making a determination as to whether the man is a heretic, and what that entails, what is required legally, or not, is not the default Catholic position. You make the issue seem simple, and as much as you'd like it to be so, which is what I'm speaking to, it is not.
-
We are still waiting, Seraphim.
Sede-
Turns out you were right.
There really is no difference between disobedience and schism.
Thanks for enlightening me!
Man, I really owe you one!
And here I thought there was a difference.
How silly of me.
Why, all I had to do was open a code of canon law to see there was no difference.
Ps: do you require regular use of smelling salts?
Seraphim
I asked you to back up your nonsense with a quote from the Code of Canon Law.
Your response, which I quote in full above, is something which many teenagers would be ashamed of making.
It is typical of the anti-Sedevacantist "arguments".
Nonsense combined with insults and sarcasm.
And you still did not give even one quote from the Code of Canon Law.
-
That Code of Canon Law quote...it isn't really going to happen.
Or is it, Seraphim ?
-
Seriously... if you have any confidence at all in your illogical nonsense, just back it up with one quote from the Code
of Canon law.
-
That Code of Canon Law quote...it isn't really going to happen.
Or is it, Seraphim ?
.....and that article I directed you to 5 posts ago.........it isn't going to happen, is it Sede?
Just another example of how a scholarly work on the doctrine of necessity makes sedes run faster than vampires from garlic!
-
You cannot seriously claim that some article by the sspx is of equivalent theological worth to the Code of Canon
Law promulgated by the Pope.
Instead of quoting the Code of Canon Law, you earlier brought you child into the argument…and now you are
bringing vampires into it.
People like you do a lot to prove to impartial readers that we – the Sedes – are right.
You could not successfully argue you case by using the Code of Canon Law if your life depended upon it.
A heretic cannot be Pope.
All Catholics must obey the Pope.
People who devise a whole way of life based on disobedience to the man they claim is Pope are deeply illogical.
If you cannot produce even one quote from the code of Canon Law to back up your unCatholic nonsense in your next post, I will see what is happening on the other threads. I will not waste more of my time on someone who is either incapable - of or is unwilling to - debate Canon Law using the Code of Canon Law.
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
And YOU know where the Church is?
Yeah, I know where the church is. It resides in the remnant faithful, which consists of bishops, priests, religious and lay people who adhere to ALL the truths the Church has always taught. Numbers are not important. The church is without a head at present.
I knew this way before you were born Caminus, as I went thru the trauma of Vatican 11 in the 60's.
Its no different today.
At that time Paul V1 usurped the chair of Peter, and obliterated the mass. Today we have the 4th successive usurper in the chair.
The magisterium is heretical, and there are very few validly elected bishops in the world. Electing a true pope would not be possible. This is the great apostasy.
-
You cannot seriously claim that some article by the sspx is of equivalent theological worth to the Code of Canon
Law promulgated by the Pope.
Instead of quoting the Code of Canon Law, you earlier brought you child into the argument…and now you are
bringing vampires into it.
People like you do a lot to prove to impartial readers that we – the Sedes – are right.
You could not successfully argue you case by using the Code of Canon Law if your life depended upon it.
A heretic cannot be Pope.
All Catholics must obey the Pope.
People who devise a whole way of life based on disobedience to the man they claim is Pope are deeply illogical.
If you cannot produce even one quote from the code of Canon Law to back up your unCatholic nonsense in your next post, I will see what is happening on the other threads. I will not waste more of my time on someone who is either incapable - of or is unwilling to - debate Canon Law using the Code of Canon Law.
Pfffffftt....
-
Seraphim, did you say you were "SSPX'er" on John Lane's board?
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
And YOU know where the Church is?
Yeah, I know where the church is. It resides in the remnant faithful, which consists of bishops, priests, religious and lay people who adhere to ALL the truths the Church has always taught. Numbers are not important. The church is without a head at present.
I knew this way before you were born Caminus, as I went thru the trauma of Vatican 11 in the 60's.
Its no different today.
At that time Paul V1 usurped the chair of Peter, and obliterated the mass. Today we have the 4th successive usurper in the chair.
The magisterium is heretical, and there are very few validly elected bishops in the world. Electing a true pope would not be possible. This is the great apostasy.
Your opinion can't be correct because it destroys the nature and function of the Catholic Church. To say that ordinary jurisdiction is gone means that apostolic succession has ended; to say that the Church cannot elect a Pope is to claim that the Catholic Church has become impotent in fulfilling its divine mandate. The "catholic church" that you describe is not absolutely identical with the Catholic Church of fifty years ago (I realize that numbers don't matter, but your statements go far more than mere numbers); the Church of today has lost continuity with the Church of yesterday. This is certainly heretical, therefore you are obliged to revise your opinions accordingly.
-
She never said the Church could never elect another Pope.
That's a new one: the claim that the succession of the Apostles depends on "ordinary jurisdiction."
What is certain, is that the true Church cannot promulgate bad masses, harmful and potentially invalid rites of sacraments, and bad councils.
Attempts to pretend that they "faked us out" with the New mass that they didn't really promulgate, and didn't really do all the other things they've done, to pretend they're both modernist heretics and Catholic authorities, does empty the apostolic succession and the Church's being preserved against the "gates of Hell" of all meaning.
-
It doesn't empty it of all meaning, it only empties the meaning that you have ascribed to the terms. If you don't have the patience to examine the matter carefully, then don't play the game. You can't dismiss facts that are inconvenient to your opinions and still claim to be a serious thinker. As far as original jurisdiction, this is a constitutive element of the Church and apostolic succession, even Benedict admits that. And to say that it is "not possible" to elect a Pope is to claim that the Church is intrinsically impotent to fulfill a necessary function. On what grounds does she make such claims? Who is she to determine this enormous fact? History is strewn with examples of men who have fallen into reactionary positions that are as equally has harmful as that against which they had reacted.
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
And YOU know where the Church is?
Yeah, I know where the church is. It resides in the remnant faithful, which consists of bishops, priests, religious and lay people who adhere to ALL the truths the Church has always taught. Numbers are not important. The church is without a head at present.
I knew this way before you were born Caminus, as I went thru the trauma of Vatican 11 in the 60's.
Its no different today.
At that time Paul V1 usurped the chair of Peter, and obliterated the mass. Today we have the 4th successive usurper in the chair.
The magisterium is heretical, and there are very few validly elected bishops in the world. Electing a true pope would not be possible. This is the great apostasy.
Your opinion can't be correct because it destroys the nature and function of the Catholic Church. To say that ordinary jurisdiction is gone means that apostolic succession has ended; to say that the Church cannot elect a Pope is to claim that the Catholic Church has become impotent in fulfilling its divine mandate. The "catholic church" that you describe is not absolutely identical with the Catholic Church of fifty years ago (I realize that numbers don't matter, but your statements go far more than mere numbers); the Church of today has lost continuity with the Church of yesterday. This is certainly heretical, therefore you are obliged to revise your opinions accordingly.
Caminus,
My beliefs are Not heretical. We still have true priests and bishops left in the world. They could elect a pope. Like I said, you have to know where the church really is........it is NOT represented by the heretical bishops, priests, and the reigning antipope. Do YOU know where the Church is....by your statements you dont.
-
This kind of discussion often seems to end up being reduced to biting and clawing each other, which does not resolve anything. So many voices, so many incitements, but it bears little good fruit.
If doctrinal matters are going to be discussed in public, I should think that it should happen in an atmosphere that is studious and calm, and the ones who engage themselves with such dangerous endeavours should be careful to let their writing be guided by the light of approved Catholic doctrine. There is a reason why the Church must exercise censure. It is because it is so easy to say or write something which may lead others astray.
Many errors are rampant today, even among those who oppose the heresy of modernism, and this whole situation is only going to be resolved when the bearer of the Keys will make a binding judgement. If people will not withold their condemnations and incitements in this time preceding that judgement, I fear that chaos will increase and order be further imperiled among those who are trying to survive spiritually in the present scenario.
Here in Europe, we sit amidst the smouldering ruins of the Old World and we weep where in days gone by there was cheerfulness and Christian bonds of concord. And when the churchbells of the old churches still toll melancholiously among the restless noise of these apostate nations, it is as if they remind us not to abandon hope, for the God of the Christians will turn the tide.
Do not devour each other, but weep! Weep, so that God may make an end to the sufferings of the Church, and so that He may exalt her before the faces of her enemies who seek to destroy her, but will fail as they have failed in the past.
-
Well, the Society is a blind man feeling in the dark .... and it has always been like that because of no firm clear objective. Forming priests for whose benefit? 1)An accommodating conciliar church? 2) A strong and confident independent remnant? 3) Or what we have now: revivalist exercises serving a 'church of the imagination'? Walt Disney could do no better. Look at the new Disneyesque seminary not being built in Virginia!
The embarrassment of the third tendency forces Bp. Fellay to settle on No. 1 and finding the best deal with Rome to prevent No 2 happening eventually. While Bp. Williamson wants the opposite and favours No 2 to prevent No 1 from happening. In the trad world, this is a clash of the Titans and is being watched closely by conservatives and traditionalists alike to confirm or deny any liberal generational trend in the movement.
Being excommunicated once again from the conciliar church could revive a sense of purpose or even create one that was never there. The lazy reliance on partial-communion to attract the widest diverse audience and maximise on legacies is a good commericial strategy but it is essentially a Modernist one. The Lefebvre 'rebellion' needs to be strengthened and acquire real bite, not weakened.
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying?
All Catholics must believe the public heretic is our Father? A valid Pope is our Father even if he is impure and lives an immoral lifestyle. Even if he gets in fist fights in dark alleys or runs a prostitution ring. But not if he teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts? A schismatic, heretic or apostate, at least public ones cannot be our Father.
Do you understand what I am saying? Can you see the distinction?
I do understand what you're saying and the distinction you're making.
What I'm saying is is that the default Catholic position is to claim the man who sits in the Chair of Peter is the Pope. Making a determination as to whether the man is a heretic, and what that entails, what is required legally, or not, is not the default Catholic position. You make the issue seem simple, and as much as you'd like it to be so, which is what I'm speaking to, it is not.
Let me know if I have this right now. Don't get mad if I'm still missing the point.
Your point is that SVs or at least I say a public heretic cannot be Pope. Ratzinger is a public heretic, therefore he is not Pope is making it too simple?
Remember this has been consistently taught by the Church by all who spoke to the issue. It seems that would fall under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Further, it seems that Paul IV defined this teaching with all the solemnity that he could muster. Again the stress is on the Divine Law and it is to protect the faithful from being led astray. To try to complicate the issue leds to a confusion which is from the devil in my opinion.
In my opinion and it seems the Church teaches this very plainly, is that if one teaches heresy and or acts like a heretic we judge him to be such plain and simple. The burden is on him to rectify the outward appearance. "I did not genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament because I have a bad knee". "I did not really kiss the Koran but was ducking a bullet." "I worship with heretics because the masons will blow up the world if I don't". That would be for all their actions. Then for all their heretical teachings they would have to say they have a double and they do not really believe what has been penned under their name.
The Church judges the exterior because that is all we can do. Seeing that one is a heretic because of his repeated heretical teachings and actions is like witnessing someon beat a baby over the head with a baseball bat until it stops moving and crying. I do not need to "make a determination" that the baby was murdered by the man who murdered it. I know it to be true based upon the factual event itself. The man who murdered the baby is a murder plain and simple, in the eyes of God and in reality, before any legal declaration, and must be avoided, especially by babies. This goes for the wolf in sheep's clothing (Ratzinger) and the spiritual babies, the sheep of the Church. When we see that he is a heretic because of his repeated heretical teachings and actions we avoid him as such as Saint John the Evangelist taught.
It really is simple. "The heretic avoid". I'm not talking about an obscure incident but the repeated acts and teachings that the conciliar leaders ("Pope") are continually guilty of.
Let me know if I am still missing what you are trying to say.
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying?
All Catholics must believe the public heretic is our Father? A valid Pope is our Father even if he is impure and lives an immoral lifestyle. Even if he gets in fist fights in dark alleys or runs a prostitution ring. But not if he teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts? A schismatic, heretic or apostate, at least public ones cannot be our Father.
Do you understand what I am saying? Can you see the distinction?
I do understand what you're saying and the distinction you're making.
What I'm saying is is that the default Catholic position is to claim the man who sits in the Chair of Peter is the Pope. Making a determination as to whether the man is a heretic, and what that entails, what is required legally, or not, is not the default Catholic position. You make the issue seem simple, and as much as you'd like it to be so, which is what I'm speaking to, it is not.
Let me know if I have this right now. Don't get mad if I'm still missing the point.
Lol- of course I wouldn't get mad. We're just discussing things :)
Your point is that SVs or at least I say a public heretic cannot be Pope. Ratzinger is a public heretic, therefore he is not Pope is making it too simple?
I'm not necessarily saying what you're doing is too simple, but what I am saying is that not everyone will come to to the same conclusion. And my point was that it is natural for a Catholic not to be a sedevecantist. I know you would agree with this, but I'm only stating the obvious. For a Catholic, it is natural for them to see the man who sits on the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, as the Pope.
I don't criticize those who are Sedevecantists. Actually the two members I respect the most on this entire forum are both sedevecantists. I only hold a different opinion than them.
-
Is this the "The Pope may be a bad father but he is still my father" argument?
Just to be clear one is biological and can't be undone no matter how bad the father is. The other is spiritual and begs the question, is he your father? Or rather is he even Catholic? The whole SV point is that he is NOT our father.
Don't forget though, that the whole non-SV point is that the default position for all Catholics, is that he IS our father. Not as simple as it may seem anymore.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying?
All Catholics must believe the public heretic is our Father? A valid Pope is our Father even if he is impure and lives an immoral lifestyle. Even if he gets in fist fights in dark alleys or runs a prostitution ring. But not if he teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts? A schismatic, heretic or apostate, at least public ones cannot be our Father.
Do you understand what I am saying? Can you see the distinction?
I do understand what you're saying and the distinction you're making.
What I'm saying is is that the default Catholic position is to claim the man who sits in the Chair of Peter is the Pope. Making a determination as to whether the man is a heretic, and what that entails, what is required legally, or not, is not the default Catholic position. You make the issue seem simple, and as much as you'd like it to be so, which is what I'm speaking to, it is not.
Let me know if I have this right now. Don't get mad if I'm still missing the point.
Lol- of course I wouldn't get mad. We're just discussing things :)
Your point is that SVs or at least I say a public heretic cannot be Pope. Ratzinger is a public heretic, therefore he is not Pope is making it too simple?
I'm not necessarily saying what you're doing is too simple, but what I am saying is that not everyone will come to to the same conclusion. And my point was that it is natural for a Catholic not to be a sedevecantist. I know you would agree with this, but I'm only stating the obvious. For a Catholic, it is natural for them to see the man who sits on the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, as the Pope.
I don't criticize those who are Sedevecantists. Actually the two members I respect the most on this entire forum are both sedevecantists. I only hold a different opinion than them.
You are quite right. It is quite natural to do this. A billion Catholics along with the rest of the world do so. He was seemingly elected, in the eyes of the world, validly, he wears what Popes wear, makes the claim, and all accept him as such. No doubt.
Who are the two you respect?
-
You are quite right. It is quite natural to do this. A billion Catholics along with the rest of the world do so. He was seemingly elected, in the eyes of the world, validly, he wears what Popes wear, makes the claim, and all accept him as such. No doubt.
Who are the two you respect?
That would be Hobbledehoy, and PereJoseph.
(Don't get a big head you two... lol- just kidding :) )
-
"Do they really want us in the Church or not
[/b]
The problem with the SSPX is that they dont know where the church is.
If you read and reread my post, Stubborn, maybe it will sink in.
If the Church in Rome is the :Seat of the Antichrist" why would the SSPX want to be part of it?
And YOU know where the Church is?
Yeah, I know where the church is. It resides in the remnant faithful, which consists of bishops, priests, religious and lay people who adhere to ALL the truths the Church has always taught. Numbers are not important. The church is without a head at present.
I knew this way before you were born Caminus, as I went thru the trauma of Vatican 11 in the 60's.
Its no different today.
At that time Paul V1 usurped the chair of Peter, and obliterated the mass. Today we have the 4th successive usurper in the chair.
The magisterium is heretical, and there are very few validly elected bishops in the world. Electing a true pope would not be possible. This is the great apostasy.
Your opinion can't be correct because it destroys the nature and function of the Catholic Church. To say that ordinary jurisdiction is gone means that apostolic succession has ended; to say that the Church cannot elect a Pope is to claim that the Catholic Church has become impotent in fulfillinge its divine mandate. The "catholic church" that you describe is not absolutely identical with the Catholic Church of fifty years ago (I realize that numbers don't matter, but your statements go far more than mere numbers); the Church of today has lost continuity with the Church of yesterday. This is certainly heretical, therefore you are obliged to revise your opinions accordingly.
Caminus,
My beliefs are Not heretical. We still have true priests and bishops left in the world. They could elect a pope. Like I said, you have to know where the church really is........it is NOT represented by the heretical bishops, priests, and the reigning antipope. Do YOU know where the Church is....by your statements you dont.
Are you saying you believe in an invisible Church?
Funny that sedes end up side by side with Karl Rahner.
-
History is strewn with examples of men who have fallen into reactionary positions that are as equally has harmful as that against which they had reacted.
Speaking hypothetically, let's say Benedict says something like "Christ is not devine" or "Mary was not born without original sin". What should we do if such an undeniable heresy were to be uttered? Not trying to start anything, I'm just curious what your answer is. Would you say the reaction from laymen should be the same, or would you consider further action?
-
History is strewn with examples of men who have fallen into reactionary positions that are as equally has harmful as that against which they had reacted.
Speaking hypothetically, let's say Benedict says something like "Christ is not devine" or "Mary was not born without original sin". What should we do if such an undeniable heresy were to be uttered? Not trying to start anything, I'm just curious what your answer is. Would you say the reaction from laymen should be the same, or would you consider further action?
A layman can not immediately do anything in that case except make your concerns known to the Holy Father. The church provides a procedure as a remedy in such a case and it does not involve the laity. It is up to the Bishops and sitting Cardinals to bring the Pope to an understanding of his heresy. If the Pope refuses to abjure his heresy and the remedies have run their course, it is up to the hierarchy to formally depose the pope.
Your question should be, what if the hierarchy refuses to bring the pope into this process, or, what if the hierarchy agrees with the pope. As a layman, the only choice you have to make is to not follow the heresy, as you are bound to reject it. There is no precedent for a layperson to personally adjudicate the heresy and depose the pope. But one certainly has an obligation to reject the heresy of the pope and/or any other priest, bishop, or angel that holds that heresy. And then, you must continue to remain Catholic in the same way you are now doing.
-
I thought this might be interesting:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm
At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word Theotokos, and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it was Eusebius, a layman, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum and the accuser of Eutyches.
I believe it is important for lay-people to hold the clergy accountable. Of course their can be over zealousness in this regard but I think under-zealousness is much more common.