Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?  (Read 1383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
« on: September 12, 2010, 12:44:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Apparently two threads have been locked on AQ due to the mere discussion of the fact that the FSSP might not be at liberty to speak out against religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality in their "regularized" state.

    Apparently one of the mods attends ICK and FSSP and can't bear this discussion. To not even allow the discussion seems to indicate a bit of fear on the part of the locker that there is truth in the assertion.

    In any case, I thought it would be an interesting discussion to have here where fitting discussion is not censored.

    The main point was discussing Bishop W's last column and whether regularization of the Society is desirable without a hard doctrinal agreement.

    Here is the Bishop's latest..

    ELEISON COMMENTS CLXV (Sept.11, 2010) : DOCTRINE -- WHY ?

    Why is doctrine in general so important to Catholics ? And why in particular does the Society of St. Pius X, following Archbishop Lefebvre and now Bishop Fellay, insist that agreement on doctrine must precede any other kind of agreement with Conciliar Rome ? Why can the SSPX not accept to be regularized by Rome now, and leave the doctrinal differences to be worked out later ? Here are two connected but different questions. Let us start with the general question.

    The word “doctrine” comes from the Latin doceo, docere, meaning, to teach. Doctrine is a teaching. In our liberal world where everybody wants to think and talk just as he likes, the word “indoctrination” has become a dirty word. Yet to put an end to indoctrination, one would have to close down all schools, because wherever a school is open, indoctrination is going on. Even if a teacher is teaching that all doctrine is nonsense, that is still a doctrine !

    However, everyone in fact agrees on the need for doctrine. For instance, who ever would climb into an aeroplane about which he was told beforehand that its designer had defied the classic doctrine of aerodynamics, and turned the wings upside down ? Nobody ! Aerodynamic doctrine which is true, for instance, that wings must taper downwards at the back and not upwards, is not just words being spoken or written out of the blue, it is life and death reality. If a plane is to fly and not to crash, true aerodynamic doctrine, in fine detail, is essential to its design.

    Similarly if a soul is to fly to Heaven and not crash into Hell, Catholic doctrine, teaching it what to believe and how to act, is essential. “God exists”, “All human beings have an immortal soul”, “Heaven and Hell are eternal”, “I must be baptized to be saved”, are not just words being imposed on souls to believe, they are life and death realities, but of eternal life and eternal death. St. Paul tells Timothy to teach these truths of salvation in or out of season (II Tim. IV, 2), and for himself he says, “Woe to me if I do not teach the Gospel” (I Cor. IX, 16). Woe to the Catholic priest who does not indoctrinate souls with the Church’s infallible doctrine !

    But the question remains: surely the SSPX, to obtain from Rome that precious regularization which Rome alone has the authority to grant, could come to a practical agreement by which no Catholic doctrine would be denied, but by which the doctrinal differences between Rome and the SSPX would merely be bracketed out for the moment ? Surely there need be here no betrayal of those great truths of salvation mentioned above ? Bishop Fellay himself answered that question briefly in an interview which he gave to Brian Mershon in May of this year, published in the “Remnant”. Here are his words: “It is very clear that whatever practical solution would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster… We have all these 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.” But need that be so ? Interesting question…

    Kyrie eleison.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #1 on: September 12, 2010, 04:06:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's really astonishing.  Do you have a link?



    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #3 on: September 12, 2010, 04:14:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #4 on: September 12, 2010, 11:38:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just go to the main forum page and look for the two locked BW threads.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #5 on: September 12, 2010, 11:46:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is getting to the point that CI will soon be the only place on the net where Trads can actually discuss serious topics freely without fearing rampant thread locking and banning at the whim of a mod.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7161/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #6 on: September 12, 2010, 12:45:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's yet another reason why I'm so glad to be posting on CI. It's the only real forum that I know of where Traditional Catholics can, as stevusmagnus noted, discuss serious topics. The person who owns AQ acts as if it's a sin to discuss the NWO (New World Order, although most people there don't take it seriously anyway), sedevacanism, etc. You can't even talk about the FSSP there? Wow, I certainly wouldn't be happy over there.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-1
    • Gender: Female
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #7 on: September 12, 2010, 12:51:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    It is getting to the point that CI will soon be the only place on the net where Trads can actually discuss serious topics freely without fearing rampant thread locking and banning at the whim of a mod.


    It's been that way!  :cheers:

    Matthew is interested in truth, and getting to the bottom of things--he has a knack for looking at the big picture, so to speak.



    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #8 on: September 12, 2010, 04:30:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can't find them Stevus.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #9 on: September 12, 2010, 06:36:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:07 am    Post subject: E. M. Jones.....Bishop Williamson.....Donatism   

    Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:34 pm    Post subject: Fwd: Bp. Williamson Column, 11 September 2010   

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2460
    • Reputation: +377/-66
    • Gender: Female
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #10 on: September 13, 2010, 11:28:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have noticed one of AQ's moderators has become quite understanding of the novus ordo church.  Don't think he would be locking threads without the Dictator's permission.  


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #11 on: September 13, 2010, 02:31:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Alexandria
    I have noticed one of AQ's moderators has become quite understanding of the novus ordo church.  Don't think he would be locking threads without the Dictator's permission.  


    There are many signs that the SSPX is in trouble.

    Offline hollingsworth1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 103
    • Reputation: +24/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #12 on: September 13, 2010, 03:54:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    There are many signs that the SSPX is in trouble.


    Yes, as a pretty active layman in an SSPX chapel, (and a church sacristan, as well) I would have to agree.  Just like AQ, the SSPX seems these days to act too equivocally, too timorously.  They want to compartmentalize truth into liturgical and doctrinal truth, and avoid all issues, (historical and secular), which they feel lie outside  carefully defined parameters.  SSPX for me is fast becoming an apostolate which refuses to draw the battle lines clearly and to wage effective war against the Rome's total apostasy.  They will come away with nothing from those discussions in Rome.

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2460
    • Reputation: +377/-66
    • Gender: Female
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #13 on: September 13, 2010, 04:06:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hollingsworth1
    Quote
    There are many signs that the SSPX is in trouble.


    Yes, as a pretty active layman in an SSPX chapel, (and a church sacristan, as well) I would have to agree.  Just like AQ, the SSPX seems these days to act too equivocally, too timorously.  They want to compartmentalize truth into liturgical and doctrinal truth, and avoid all issues, (historical and secular), which they feel lie outside  carefully defined parameters.  SSPX for me is fast becoming an apostolate which refuses to draw the battle lines clearly and to wage effective war against the Rome's total apostasy. They will come away with nothing from those discussions in Rome.



    They weren't like that twenty years ago.  Myself, I noticed a change beginning around the year 2000.  

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Angelqueen Locking Threads Discussing the FSSP?
    « Reply #14 on: September 13, 2010, 11:30:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ever since the lifting of the "excoms" I've noticed a change myself. A lot of articles magically disappeared off of their website. You hardly ever hear a critical word these days from Society priests against Church leadership. I'm not saying that they should be railing on the hierarchy all the time. But just listening to sermons back in the 90's they were much more clear and outspoken regarding exactly what was causing the crisis.

    I, for one, simply do not see how they can be "regularized" without becoming, for all practical purposes, the FSSP. For instance, will they seriously be allowed to maintain on their website that  the Novus Ordo mass is a sacrilege if they are in "full communion"? I'm sure the libs would have a field day with that one. Could they seriously speak out about practices Rome has approved being sinful? CITH for instance? Would they "tone down" their statements? The New Mass goes from "sinful" to "not preferable"?

    And if they do "tone down" their statements, what are we left with? Basically the FSSP except with 4 Bishops (who will probably be whittled down later on). For even if the Society priests and faithful privately hold to the same beliefs they always had, silence will soon turn into forgetfulness and later consent. Just like the Church in the 60's they will deemphasize any criticism of their opponents thus leaving the impression they agree, causing indifferentism amongst the faithful.

    If the Society continues to state openly that the N.O. is a sacrilege, CITH is a sacrilege, the Pope is wrong to visit the houses of other Faiths, can they ever hope to be "regularized"?

    And if they stop stating these things openly and do get "regularized" how do they differ from the FSSP? Why did they then wait an extra 20+ years after the FSSP took the deal, to then take a deal where they become, for all intents and purposes, the same organization with a different title?

     

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