Author Topic: SSPX: A Spectacular Reading from the Pulpit (Read 5150 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** March 26, 2012, 11:49:06 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

A stage exit just when your baseless rhetoric is challenged? Typical. I think the intelligent reader can see just who is victim of a mental block.

Smelling salts may be effective for you.

bernadette · « **Reply #21 on:** March 26, 2012, 11:59:01 AM »

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebrianos-13844/

Caminus · « **Reply #22 on:** March 26, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Caminus
A stage exit just when your baseless rhetoric is challenged? Typical. I think the intelligent reader can see just who is victim of a mental block.

Smelling salts may be effective for you.

An evasive coward who ignores anyone that challenges the status quo of his self-constructed opinion machine.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 26, 2012, 12:41:24 PM »

Quote from: bernadette

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebrianos-13844/

Quote

Mgr. Fellay himself had said that there were no real difficulties in terms of the acceptance of “the profession of the faith” and of the whole preamble, which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.

And we wonder why they don't tell us what it says. So they can do a hat trick. And then the SSPX fanatics will tell us there's no contradiction with their previous position. Sounds like the position of Benedict XVI on Vatican II. Which apparently they will be agreeing with.

So what was the point of forming the SSPX again?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 on:** March 26, 2012, 12:42:50 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

1. You seriously expect anyone who understands the mind of ABL to reject a 'no strings attached' canonical regularization? That's laughable. You can provide no docuмentation supporting such a notion. I think you need to explain to us on what possible grounds would you reject such legal recognition.

2. When you say Rome must convert to the Faith, you must be speaking improperly. If you mean 'conversion' in it's formal sense, and considering that by 'Rome' you mean the person of the Pope, then it must necessarily follow that you consider the putative Pope to be a non-Catholic simpliciter. If that is the case then I guess you'll have to explain the foolishness of the SSPX in dealing with a man who is a non-Catholic usurper. Or do you think that upon his "conversion" he will spontaneously be elevated to the Papacy and will then immediately turn to the SSPX with open arms?

3. Regarding Protestant ecclesiology, that is no mere cheap shot. You're not approaching the matter logically or objectively according to your duties as a Catholic layman. If and only when the Faith is perverted in some manner would you be compelled to change parishes. Until such a time occurs, and change would be predicated on something other than the faith, which is a particularly "Protestant" habit of mind. If such a move were to occur, then you would also have the task of explaining to your family the oddity of changing their parish while the Faith at both locations remains unchanged.

4. You really don't seem to grasp the common good viz. the Society. Here it is in a nutshell. As Bishop Williamson noted, authority and those who retain the integrity of the faith are in an unnatural state of separation. Being unnatural, there is the inherent need to rectify the problem. Once this problem is rectified, all those Catholics who are of good will, disposed to receive tradition, will then fill the pews of the Society, which is simply the better part of the Church. Resources will also come. As that part of the Church grows, the dead part (a much larger portion) will formally die and break off, thus opening the possibility of electing a traditional Pope and restoring the Church.

You have to think outside the 'box' of the SSPX and consider the Church as a whole. A Church which contains many who would not benefit from traditional priests were it not for a canonical regularization. You mock such a notion as implying a 'ghetto of tradition'. Sorry, but we are ALREADY IN a 'ghetto of tradition'.

This is nonsense.