Author Topic: Michael Voris (Read 9925 times)

TerryCMTV · « **Reply #40 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:45:28 PM »

To say that CMTV's "response to the SSPX" is contained within a docuмent titled "Sedevacantism: General Response" is an embarrassing distortion of what was actually said.

I said that a link at the very beginning of the quote from the other blog site contains CMTV's "official response" to those who ask our "opinion" about the SSPX.

I then said that our "Sedevacantism: General Response" is "germane" to the discussion of the SSPX because, in that "General Response," we focus on the importance of visible unity with the visible Church. It is impossible to conclude, from our "official response" on the status of the SSPX and our discussion of the importance of visible unity with the visible Church that we think the SSPX is sedevacantist. We know that is not true and we have said so.

Our "Sedevacantism: General Response" is too long to copy here as a posting, but our "official response" to the SSPX is not, so I am going to copy it here. No one here has given any evidence of having read either docuмent but everyone seems to have an opinion of what it must say. Here is the CMTV "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX:

Quote

The position of ChurchMilitant.TV concerning the SSPX is that of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as expressed in his motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, issued July 2, 2009:

Quote
In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the "Society of St Pius X" to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

There are two important points here:

1) The SSPX are not in full communion with the Church and are invited by the Church to rediscover this path.

2) The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

We are well aware of ongoing dialog between the SSPX and Rome. It is to be fervently hoped that these dialogs result in a return of the SSPX to full communion with the Church, granting their bishops and clergy canonical status and the authority to exercise ministry. Until such time as this occurs, our judgment must remain that of the Holy Father.

I realize that there are many who dispute the use of phrases like "full communion" saying that there is no such thing as "partial communion" just like there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant." Christopher Ferrara defends this position rather vigorously and concludes that since there is no such thing as "partial communion," then the SSPX can only be in "full communion," the Holy Father's words notwithstanding. Another possibility is that since there is no such thing as "partial communion," and the Holy Father invites the SSPX to "rediscover the path to full communion," then the SSPX is not in communion with the Church at all! I accept that this can be debated by intelligent people, but I don't think it is either dishonest or unfair for CMTV to quote the Holy Father in an "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX.

Now, if I can convince you to read that other docuмent, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion based on what CMTV actually says, not what you think they have said.

As for whether or how CMTV values "the true Mass," the only Masses offered in our chapel are TLM.

Drumshanbo · « **Reply #41 on:** April 08, 2013, 10:43:45 PM »

Mr. Carroll, can I assume from your post that the TLM being the only mass offered in your chapel that you also believe that masses offered by the SSPX are no longer conceivable to be as offensive to God as Black Masses? I guess my issue has always been the presumption that a Mass offered by a priest of the SSPX could be anything but pleasing to God. It is conceivable that lay commentators and their businesses could be offensive to God, but I doubt it. Ecclesia Dei has publicly commented that the faithful can fulfill their Sunday obligation at a SSPX chapel. I am sure you are aware of this. You write of possibilities of the Holy Father's opinion, something I am quite sure neither you nor I have knowledge of. If we are speaking of possibilities then anything could be up for grabs. I sincerely wish you no ill will. I am frankly just sick of all the punditry within traditional circles, each claiming superior knowledge or insight, while the modernists continue their dance of destruction.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #42 on:** April 08, 2013, 11:16:00 PM »

Quote from: TerryCMTV

but I don't think it is either dishonest or unfair for CMTV to quote the Holy Father in an "official response" to inquiries about the SSPX.

Well, *you* have been quoted regarding a previous response regarding the SSPX which you've refused to address for, what 3 or 4 posts and half a dozen people who've asked you to clarify.

Quote from: TerryCMTV

Now, if I can convince you to read that other docuмent, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion based on what CMTV actually says, not what you think they have said.

Now if I can convince you to answer the question you've been asked repeatedly...

Regarding what you've "actually said", how about that? How about you address what you "actually said".

I have another idea, how about instead of posting a link to a lengthy docuмent about your response to sedevacantism "generally", wherein you ramble about the SSPX and *say* really nothing (if anyone bothers to read that far?) you just post your answer, you pasted the relevant section finally, how hard was that? Why should I go to a link? I don't care about your 'official position', click the post button and paste, chief, but your official position (whatever it actually is, your official statement reads like a post-Conciliar encyclical) doesn't answer the question about whether an SSPX offends God as much or more than a black Mass.

Now again, you've inserted yourself into the conversation (but you do not control the terms), how about them Black Masses re:SSPX Masses, huh?

TerryCMTV · « **Reply #43 on:** April 09, 2013, 06:56:04 PM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Now again, you've inserted yourself into the conversation (but you do not control the terms), how about them Black Masses re:SSPX Masses, huh?

I said earlier that a response to this question is inappropriate for THIS THREAD, since the topic of THIS THREAD is Michael Voris and CMTV, not what Terry Carroll's personal thoughts and opinions are on anything at all, e.g., whether I prefer football to the sport God loves best.

Here, in THIS FORUM, I registered as TerryCMTV, with the express purpose of allowing anyone who wishes to get clarification on CMTV issues from someone actually capable of addressing them.

Therefore, I repeat, it is not appropriate to respond in THIS THREAD or even in THIS FORUM to THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION.

THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION has been and can still be discussed in the comments section at the blog where you found my comment. I consider the comments there, both for and against what I wrote, to be fair and see no need to develop or explain what I said further. I'm satisfied that I could not add to what has already been said.

I am not, in THIS THREAD and THIS FORUM speaking on behalf of myself. If that's not acceptable, then say so. I remember having a life before registering and offering to participate here, and I suspect I will realize that I still have one if this isn't judged productive or fruitful, by myself or others.

Nadir · « **Reply #44 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:31:05 AM »

There's not many answers coming from Mr Carroll.

Juvenalis and Hermengild, please stop holding your breath!

The cement has not yet dried. When I wrote these last two sentences for some reason Mr Carroll' s response was not showing, Mr Carroll's response wherein he claims that his Vat2 beliefs are not relevent. It seems you cut too close to the bone for comfort, Hermengild. What could be more relevant than Vat2?