Author Topic: "Regularise" the SSPX...  (Read 2586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Machabees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 826
  • Reputation: +0/-0
"Regularise" the SSPX...
« on: November 25, 2012, 07:12:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An interesting article from Gabriel @ IA.

    From Father Roberts' blog Imperium Christi (1st July 2012) at http://kingshipofchrist.blogspot.co.uk/

    He is commenting on the interviews of Archbishop Di Noia (Vice-President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) with CNS and the National Catholic Register in June. He shows how the presence of a "regularize" SSPX in the Conciliar Church would actually legitimize the documents of Vatican II and permanently institutionalize the Revolution. (Di Noia's statements are in italic. My highlighting.)

    Quote
    The texts [of the Council] must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his [Di Noia's] whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.

    Di Noia: I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.

    However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].


    Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.

    Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution.  One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these documents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The document is a "living document" in which the intentions of the fathers are useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past documents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these documents are fluid. Their meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.

    The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.

    Di Noia: If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real.

    The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and of which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.
    [/b]


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #1 on: November 25, 2012, 07:20:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, that's why stating that a practical agreement is possible without a doctrinal agreement is in fact a doctrinal shift.

    The very idea of putting "prudence" before "Faith" is absurd, and it's absolutely pathetic that so-called "trads" would fall for such pragmatism.  It makes you wonder, why have they been trads all these years?


    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4665
    • Reputation: +2620/-9
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #2 on: November 25, 2012, 10:00:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sounds like Archbishop Di Noa wants to turn the SSPX into some kind of caged parrot that bypassers can look upon and a carnival hawker can say "And here, ladies and gentlemen, in this cage with all its colors so vibrant is the proof needed to show that "Blessed Benedict XVI - soon to be canonized" was correct in saying that the interpretation of continuity means exactly what it means.  There is no rupture in the Church."  

    If the new church thinks regularizing the SSPX is a way to make the case for continuity, then why the demands to submit to V-II?  

    Why does new church need to validate anything?  They just need to continue the posture that V-II was the New Pentecost and that everything is okay and only cranky old people are clamoring for the Tridentine Mass.  Besides, the New Church already has the FSSP and the ICKSP to be "caged parrots".

    By caged parrots, I mean non-self contained units.  Neither the FSSP nor the ICKSP has a traditonal Bishop.  They don't even have a new post-1969 bishop.  And even on the ICKSP website they proclaim their excitement in remaining small but artistically powerful - they don't use those words, but that's pretty much what they mean.

    Other than to destroy the Traditional Catholic Faith, I can't think of a valid reason to regularize the SSPX.  If the SSPX were regularized, they would remain traditional until the remaining Traditionalist Bishops passed away from old age and the new bishops would be post-1969ers.  The four were consecrated in 1988.  That means even the youngest of the remaining three is in this late 50's.  If this didn't come to pass, eventually a pope would insist that they use the Paul VI formula.  

    Archbishop di Noa's comments highlighted in black are strange indeed.  Or perhaps they are intended as some for m of PsyOps.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #3 on: November 25, 2012, 10:05:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If the SSPX were regularized, they would remain traditional until the remaining Traditionalist Bishops passed away


    What makes you think that?  They will change steadily (as they have been) and continue to change until they are just another liberal group with the old liturgy.

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #4 on: November 25, 2012, 10:12:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the NewChurch, the FSSP and the ICKSP being "caged parrots" isn't enough.  They want the "crown jewel" -the Faith and Legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre to die off...


    Offline VCR

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +69/-0
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #5 on: November 25, 2012, 10:13:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very interesting! I'm just curious who Fr. Marshal Roberts is and what is his background? Is he independent, SSPX, sede, etc? His blog looks good.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #6 on: November 25, 2012, 10:29:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Machabees
    Quote

    ...
    One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to [create] these documents.
    ...


    I say it's a fundamental error to even say that "the Holy Ghost used the fathers"
    to make these documents happen.  The Holy Ghost does not propagate error
    and ambiguity at a Council.  The Holy Ghost was only conspicuous by His ABSENCE
    at Vatican II!


    The driving force of Vat.II was an unclean spirit, not the Holy Ghost..

    -- the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #7 on: November 26, 2012, 06:18:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These Ecclesia Dei bodies are just earlier versions of SSPX half-heartedness. Or maybe it is fair to say that ABL attracted a wide variety of expressions not happy with elements of the conciliar project that would only form a temporary unity. Is it not surprising that the growth in ED membership would continue with the inclusion of the SSPX itself one day? How fearful these clerics are of acquiring a 'schismatic' tendency even when the faith is at stake!  


    Offline trento

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 362
    • Reputation: +69/-2
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #8 on: November 26, 2012, 11:22:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: VCR
    Very interesting! I'm just curious who Fr. Marshal Roberts is and what is his background? Is he independent, SSPX, sede, etc? His blog looks good.


    Is this the same Fr. Marshall Roberts formerly of the SSJ? A quick search on Google will reveal something.

    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #9 on: November 26, 2012, 06:28:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trento
    Quote from: VCR
    Very interesting! I'm just curious who Fr. Marshal Roberts is and what is his background? Is he independent, SSPX, sede, etc? His blog looks good.


    Is this the same Fr. Marshall Roberts formerly of the SSJ? A quick search on Google will reveal something.


    Hopefully it is a different Fr. Roberts...

    From: http://www.newengelpublishing.com/pages/Exploiting-Traditionalist-Orders-The-Society-of-St.-John.html

    Quote
    By early 2002, Bishop Timlin was aware that Fathers Urrutigoity and Ensey were accused of the sexual molestation. The District Attorney’s office of Lackawanna County had launched a criminal investigation into the accusations of sexual misconduct by the two SSJ priests, but was forced to abandon the case because of the statue of limitations. Time had run out for the complainant in May 2001. He would have to resort to a civil suit.

              Bishop Timlin immediately suspended Fathers Urrutigoity and Ensey and brought them to Scranton. Timlin was reported to be considering Urrutigoity’s request to be transferred to another religious order, when he learned that the SSJ had other “problem” priests.

              Fr. Marshall Roberts was another SSJ priest who resided with Urrutigoity and Ensey at St. Gregory’s Academy from 1997 to 1999.  

    According to the Vice-Rector of Christ the King Institute in Gricigliano, Italy, in 1993 Roberts was kicked out of the seminary when he formed an inordinate sexual attachment to a fellow seminarian with whom he had become infatuated. Within 24 hours of the Vice-Rector being informed of Roberts’ designs on his classmate, who did not appreciate the attention, Roberts was looking for new living quarters. Roberts was eventually ordained by the SSPX and later became a founding members of the SSJ.  

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1227
    • Reputation: +1176/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #10 on: November 26, 2012, 06:32:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From all accounts, I believe that was a slander.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this


    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #11 on: November 26, 2012, 08:14:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    From all accounts, I believe that was a slander.


    No slander intended, we still have hope they are not one and the same.  :pray:

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    "Regularise" the SSPX...
    « Reply #12 on: November 26, 2012, 10:12:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the one(s) who like to hit the “dislike” buttons all the time, I encourage you to enter a post of your dislike and be a part of the discussion.  To hide behind a click of a mouse is, well, mousey.

    By the title -"Regularize" the SSPX..., AB. Di Noia...legitimizes Vat. II, this is about a serious issue: in disclosing an interesting interview of a top prelate of the (conciliar) Church showing his true cards; even for the accordists to SEE and wake up to the ongoing “false realities” of this SSPX/ROME agreement; regardless of who the author of the article is and of “other” things he may write about.

    In other words, if God so chooses to get His providence out by an angel or a donkey, the message will get out regardless of what you think of Gabriel @ IA or Fr. Roberts commentary (whom I do not know).

    There are many here, in adding their postings, who are understanding this game and getting the impact of why all of these maneuvers are coming from Neo-Rome.

    Any honest discussion from the other side of “dislikers” would be welcome?  If you do not think that the Faith is in deep trouble and is being suppressed from those who are in leader/stewardship positions (…), then go visit the whole article and the interview of Archbishop Di Noia –God’s providence of a modernist “donkey”, to see the Pharisaic corruption, also Neo-Rome’s Assisi program.  As well as, the books and works of Archbishop Lefebvre –God’s providence of a traditional “Angel”, to understand the fight.

     

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