Author Topic: SSPX: A Spectacular Reading from the Pulpit (Read 3371 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #30 on:** March 26, 2012, 02:13:06 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Telesphorus
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.

2) Regarding your 2nd sentence: No, it would be because Bishop Fellay does not agree with ABL's principle that there shall be no discussion of practical solutione before the doctrinal issues are resolved.

How would they be unresolved, if they accept the Council interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI?

Seems like concession of a fundamental principle to me.

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** March 26, 2012, 02:38:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Caminus
Why's that?

Because it is outrageous to assume that the SSPX "reconciling" with Rome would be good. Not until Rome converts to Tradition first. I think Archbishop LeFebvre summed it up nicely:

"If they excommunicate us, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ". -Archbishop LeFebvre

1. What do you think "reconcile" means?
2. Do you think ABL literally thought Rome was synonymous with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or do you think that ABL was using the term in a figurative sense pertaining the the underlying causes of the destruction of the Faith?

Caminus · « **Reply #32 on:** March 26, 2012, 02:41:09 PM »

Benedict's "hermenuetic" has been demostrated by SSPX theologians to be insufficient and even contradictory, therefore I seriously doubt that the SSPX will find themselves faced with accepting a non-binding private opinion of the Pope regarding interpretive methods. Thus I also seriously doubt the veracity of the reporting. But we shall see.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #33 on:** March 26, 2012, 03:50:21 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Telesphorus
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.

2) Regarding your 2nd sentence: No, it would be because Bishop Fellay does not agree with ABL's principle that there shall be no discussion of practical solutione before the doctrinal issues are resolved.

How would they be unresolved, if they accept the Council interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI?

Seems like concession of a fundamental principle to me.

You are actually agreeing with me.

Accepting BXVI's bogus "hermeneutic" (where in the heck did this stupid word come from anyway!!!) would be a false resolution in order to sign an agreement.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** March 26, 2012, 03:52:22 PM »

PS: I see Caminus is lighting up the board with more posts. I have him on ignore, so I can't read them, but I can pretty much guess what they say anyway: The same thing as his last 20 posts on this issue? Someone let me know if I am right :roll-laugh2:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #35 on:** March 26, 2012, 04:18:35 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

1. What do you think "reconcile" means?

Rome should be reconciling with Tradition before the Society reconciles with them.

Quote

2. Do you think ABL literally thought Rome was synonymous with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or do you think that ABL was using the term in a figurative sense pertaining the the underlying causes of the destruction of the Faith?

Well, Rome was infiltrated by Freemasons, and the theology of Vatican II is basically Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Of course Rome itself is not Freemasonic, but it was infiltrated by Masons. I hope that makes sense; I can clarify if need-be.

s2srea · « **Reply #36 on:** March 26, 2012, 04:31:12 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

PS: I see Caminus is lighting up the board with more posts. I have him on ignore, so I can't read them, but I can pretty much guess what they say anyway: The same thing as his last 20 posts on this issue? Someone let me know if I am right :roll-laugh2:

That's too bad. Discussion on this is good, and has been fruitful, and I think you both make good points. I hope you reconsider.

SpiritusSanctus isn't making any sense (logically speaking) and seems to bee too eager to just argue with him.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** March 26, 2012, 09:07:48 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

SpiritusSanctus isn't making any sense (logically speaking) and seems to bee too eager to just argue with him.

How so? My point is that Archbishop LeFebvre would not have approved of any "reconciliation" unless Rome converted first. If you want to put your trust in someone who has shown his stance is much different from ABL, go ahead. That's up to you. But to do so is what doesn't make sense.