Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Why Doctrine? Part 2  (Read 930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22911
  • Reputation: +20059/-240
  • Gender: Male
Why Doctrine? Part 2
« on: September 23, 2010, 01:16:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DOCTRINE -- WHY? Part 2
    By Bishop Williamson

    Doctrine, or teaching, is of the very essence of the Catholic Church. Souls
    must firstly be * taught* how to get to Heaven, or they will never get
    there. "Going, *teach* all nations" is among the very last instructions of
    Our Lord to his Apostles (Mt. XXVIII, 19). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre's
    heroic fight for Catholic Tradition (1970-1991) was first and foremost
    doctrinal.

    That is also why, as quoted last week in EC 165, Bishop Fellay told Brian
    Mershon last May that doctrinal differences cannot be bracketed out in order
    to arrive at any practical agreement, however attractive, with Rome. Asked
    whether the rejection by the Society of St Pius X of a canonical or
    practical solution was not "a sign of obstinacy or ill will", the Bishop
    replied (his words are accessible on the website of the "Remnant") : "...It
    is very clear that whatever practical solution would happen without a sound
    doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster... We have all these
    previous examples in front of us - the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute
    of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of
    doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement."

    The reason for Catholic doctrine being "blocked" by any practical agreement
    is common sense. Today's Romans are still absolutely attached to their
    Council (Vatican II). That Council is essentially a slide away from Catholic
    Tradition, the religion of God, down into a new religion of man. If then
    they make a major concession to Tradition, such as would be any
    regularization of the SSPX, they are bound to ask for some concession in
    return. Now they know that the SSPX clings to Catholic doctrine, for all the
    reasons given previously. So the least that they can require is that the
    doctrinal differences be passed over, for the moment.

    But that is enough for the Romans' purposes ! As to "for the moment", once
    a practical re-union were to have been signed, the non-doctrinal euphoria of
    all the Traditional souls delighted to be no longer out in the cold (as they
    feel it) of Rome's disapproval, would make it quite difficult for the SSPX
    to back-track if - just by chance, of course - the "moment" were to turn
    into an indefinite length of time. The trap would have closed on the SSPX.

    And as to the "passed over", to pass over doctrine, especially the
    *radical*doctrinal difference between the religion of God and the
    religion of man, is
    equivalent to passing over, or bracketing out, God Himself. But how can a
    servant of God possibly serve God by bracketing Him out, or passing Him over
    ? If one thinks about it, that is the first little step towards a great
    apostasy !

    As Bishop Fellay points out, 40 years of experience confirm these principles
    - the battlefield of Catholic Tradition is littered with the corpses of
    organizations which started out nobly, but failed to grasp the importance of
    the doctrinal problem.

    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #1 on: September 23, 2010, 08:38:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :applause: :rahrah:

    ABL, Ora Pro Nobis
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic


    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2523
    • Reputation: +402/-69
    • Gender: Female
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #2 on: September 23, 2010, 12:10:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I dug out recently my biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and couldn't help thinking, as I was reading it, how much the SSPX has changed.

    They used to be so outspoken and "militant".  When I read what the Archbishop both wrote and said - no one in the SSPX talks like that today.  And when they do (Like Bishop Williamson), a muzzle is put on them.  

    Bishop Fellay knows now that they are wasting their time trying to discuss these things with the Vatican.  It is the same problem that TKGS and I have run into, which is that they have no common ground and are each coming from a completely different direction.  They belong to two different religions.

    What good is the old Mass if you don't have the Faith?  (Just so I am not misunderstood, I was referring to the indult communities [FSSP, ICK etc.] by the latter comment.)

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2811
    • Reputation: +1837/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #3 on: September 23, 2010, 08:34:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew,

    I certainly agree that the changes of V-II are very bad, and I largely agree with the SSPX position regarding the current crisis that I perceive to have resulted from V-II.  But I'm not clear what is being termed as differences in "doctrine."

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #4 on: September 24, 2010, 07:06:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Alexandria
    I dug out recently my biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and couldn't help thinking, as I was reading it, how much the SSPX has changed.

    They used to be so outspoken and "militant".  When I read what the Archbishop both wrote and said - no one in the SSPX talks like that today.  And when they do (Like Bishop Williamson), a muzzle is put on them.  

    Bishop Fellay knows now that they are wasting their time trying to discuss these things with the Vatican.  It is the same problem that TKGS and I have run into, which is that they have no common ground and are each coming from a completely different direction.  They belong to two different religions.

    What good is the old Mass if you don't have the Faith?  (Just so I am not misunderstood, I was referring to the indult communities [FSSP, ICK etc.] by the latter comment.)



    Alas, I know those days well. They once had fire in their bellies. The original rebels have been replaced by yes-men. One no longer battles with modern Rome for the faith; one, like all the rest, dialogues with her!


    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #5 on: September 24, 2010, 07:21:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Matthew,

    I certainly agree that the changes of V-II are very bad, and I largely agree with the SSPX position regarding the current crisis that I perceive to have resulted from V-II.  But I'm not clear what is being termed as differences in "doctrine."


    start with pre-V2 and post-V2 teachings on ecumenism......used tobe, EENS, now, a universal salvation....no organic development, but a sea change..
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2811
    • Reputation: +1837/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #6 on: September 24, 2010, 10:57:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    Quote from: OHCA
    Matthew,

    I certainly agree that the changes of V-II are very bad, and I largely agree with the SSPX position regarding the current crisis that I perceive to have resulted from V-II.  But I'm not clear what is being termed as differences in "doctrine."


    start with pre-V2 and post-V2 teachings on ecumenism......used tobe, EENS, now, a universal salvation....no organic development, but a sea change..


    Thanks, Belloc.  Ok, I see where you're coming from.  Please forgive me, these are things I've hardly been exposed to spending my years as a child learning the "faith" in a liberal N.O. parish, and not having any meaningful exposure to tradition until I was 30+ years old.

    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +396/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Why Doctrine? Part 2
    « Reply #7 on: September 25, 2010, 12:53:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs

     from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

    1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?

    The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.

    2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?

    There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.

    3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

    Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

     It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.

    4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?

    The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-know Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.

    5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

    The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.

    6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

    The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.

    7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?

    The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.

    8. What does all this mean?

    It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.

    The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.

    As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.

    9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

     No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

    the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
    the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;

    the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;

    the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;

    the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;

    the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;

    the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith.
    He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16