Author Topic: A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX - 18 December 2013 (Read 22690 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:21:29 AM »

.

Like I said, petwerp is not interested in any substantive discussion, and petwerp, the troll, ignores everything that is inconvenient for his own, twisted agenda.

Quote

Not sure how this tired old argument has come up again, but...

This same old argument comes up again because petwerp is a worm and a troll and he's going to keep on saying the same old, tired nonsense again and again, and he won't pay one whit of attention to any of the mountains of evidence anyone provides to the contrary, because he's not interested in the truth.

Liberals are only interested in their own agenda. Anything reasonable and opposed to their agenda they "just say no" to, and they say it's "wrong."

So get used to it, because that's all you're ever going to see from this worm troll petwerp, who contributes nothing to the discussion and has only deceit and lies to proffer, typical of Modernists and liberals.

The Challenge to Fr. Themann stands. It's 34 pages long, and it's filled with questions that Fr. Themann is not man enough to answer, unfortunately. He can prove me wrong by answering them. But if he ever does respond, he's only going to pick one or two questions that are convenient for him and he'll probably give answers that do not address the questions anyway but pretend instead to answer some other question that he would have preferred that had been asked of him.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:44:03 AM »

Quote from: Nickolas

I recall listening to Fr. Themann's address after it was posted online and I guess I was immediately dismissive of his tame approach when he said he personally had never given a sermon on the evil of Vatican II. That told me all I needed to know about him and the message he brought at that time.

Thank you Neil Obstat for your efforts in this post and raising the issue again at this time.

Thank you, Nickolas. I've only touched on about 4 of the 34 pages so far.

.

peterp · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2014, 12:02:15 PM »

Legitimately promulgated nonsense.

Promulgation is nothing more than making known (publishing in ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis) the will of the legislator (pope). 'Promulgated' is always taken to mean 'legitimately promulgated'. Ask any professor in law. As Fr. Themann said, because Rome has suspicions that the society did not recognize Paul VI and John Paul II as legitimate pontiffs the word 'legitimately' was added.

Also, if you read the 1988 protocol you'll see it contains "Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II" and "According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746"

Here's what the archbishop said of the promulgated code, "I had not seen any necessity for a change. But if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful." Hence it is CLEAR that he deemed that it had been promulgated legitimately.

So these author(s) would have us believe the archbishop used 'promulgated' to mean both 'legitimately promulgated' and 'not promulgated' in the same docuмent!

peterp · « **Reply #33 on:** January 08, 2014, 12:06:58 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

The Challenge to Fr. Themann stands. It's 34 pages long, and it's filled with questions that Fr. Themann is not man enough to answer, unfortunately. He can prove me wrong by answering them. But if he ever does respond, he's only going to pick one or two questions that are convenient for him and he'll probably give answers that do not address the questions anyway but pretend instead to answer some other question that he would have preferred that had been asked of him.

Neil, you already have your answers. Your problem is that you simply do not like them. The whole docuмent pretty much hinges on two fallacies which I have addressed.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** January 08, 2014, 12:35:19 PM »

.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.

Quote from: TheRecusant

N.B. We reproduce the following article with the kind permission of the authors
of www.TrueTrad.com The Recusant resumes its usual format in January.

An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann

From: Anonymous
(We are reachable at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com )
Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013 [October 15th]
Re: Answering your question: “Resistance to what?”

Dear Father Themann,

We have listened carefully to your April 2013 conference given at St. Marys, and which the SSPX sent to the faithful on its mailing list, as a free two-CD set, accompanied by a long written summary of your talk. In this present letter, through which we respond to your conference, all citations refer to disc 1, track 2 unless otherwise noted.

We are aware of many priests and laity who have pointed out errors and crucial omissions in your conference. We join our voices to theirs, attempting to mitigate the confusion your conference has caused.

We apologize for the length of our letter. But when you talk for 2½ hours, you can’t expect our answer to be only two pages.

We hold that Bishop Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time.

Your False Explanation Regarding Matters Of Prudence

Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between “questions of principle” and “questions of prudence”. 10:40.

Here are your words in one of the places you emphasize this point:

“Does the question of accepting a canonical structure
boil down to a question of principle, or a question of
prudence? It is very important to answer this question
correctly, or nothing else makes sense.” Id.

This is your first error regarding prudence. The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circuмstances.(1) So for example, when someone hands you a gold coin for safekeeping and then later asks you to return it, you will know how to respond to his request by applying a universal principle to the particular circuмstances. In this example, the universal principle is: return property to its owner.(2) So, using the virtue of prudence, you would apply that universal principle to the circuмstance that you have the man’s coin, and so you would return the coin to him.

Thus, your first error is to wrongly attempt to separate “questions of principle” from “questions of prudence”. The truth is that every matter of prudence is acting on principle!

Don’t you see that, if you and the SSPX say that your actions need not be “questions of principle”, then you would be saying you think you are free to act in any way you choose? But there’s more.

Your second error regarding prudence, is your misunderstanding how changed circuмstances(3) affect prudent actions. When ceasing to follow a prior principle (like no deal with unconverted Rome), you seem to think that it is an adequate explanation to simply invoke changed circuмstances. But although circuмstances might change which principle applies, there is always a different principle which then does apply.

Let us illustrate this point by an example: start with this general principle: return property to its owner. But man’s fallen human nature can cause exceptions to this principle.(4) Suppose, a man gives a gun to you for safekeeping and then suppose he becomes crazy and so asks you to return his gun because he wants to commit murder. In that circuмstance, prudence requires that another principle takes precedence and must be applied, viz., never give a gun to a madman.

So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting
to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar
Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition
of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.

Here is another way Archbishop Lefebvre formulated the same principle:

[W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while
waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman
authorities, in their minds. This will last for as long as the
Good Lord has foreseen.
Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.

_____________________________
FOOTNOTES
1. St. Thomas says it this way: “prudence … applies universal principles to the particular conclusions of practical matters.” Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIa IIae, Q.47, a.6.
2. In his Treatise on Prudence, St. Thomas phrases this universal principle of action as follows: “the restitution of a deposit to the depositor is in accordance with natural equality”. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.
3. We think it is plain that no relevant circuмstances have changed in Rome. In fact, if we had not been witnessing Bishop Fellay’s gradual slide into liberalism for many years, we would not have believed that anyone could be so naïve as to think that Assisi-hosting, mosque-praying, Vatican II-promoting Pope Benedict XVI was anything but a conciliar revolutionary. More on that below.
4. St. Thomas says it this way: “if human nature were always right, this [principle] would always have to be observed”. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1. The principle St. Thomas refers to, is the one quoted in footnote 2.

Page 3...........

[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]

.

peterp · « **Reply #35 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:13:04 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.

Quote from: TheRecusant
N.B. We reproduce the following article with the kind permission of the authors
of www.TrueTrad.com The Recusant resumes its usual format in January.

An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann

From: Anonymous
(We are reachable at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com )
Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013 [October 15th]
Re: Answering your question: “Resistance to what?”

Dear Father Themann,

We have listened carefully to your April 2013 conference given at St. Marys, and which the SSPX sent to the faithful on its mailing list, as a free two-CD set, accompanied by a long written summary of your talk. In this present letter, through which we respond to your conference, all citations refer to disc 1, track 2 unless otherwise noted.

We are aware of many priests and laity who have pointed out errors and crucial omissions in your conference. We join our voices to theirs, attempting to mitigate the confusion your conference has caused.

We apologize for the length of our letter. But when you talk for 2½ hours, you can’t expect our answer to be only two pages.

We hold that Bishop Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time.

Your False Explanation Regarding Matters Of Prudence

Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between “questions of principle” and “questions of prudence”. 10:40.

Here are your words in one of the places you emphasize this point:

“Does the question of accepting a canonical structure
boil down to a question of principle, or a question of
prudence? It is very important to answer this question
correctly, or nothing else makes sense.” Id.

This is your first error regarding prudence. The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circuмstances.(1) So for example, when someone hands you a gold coin for safekeeping and then later asks you to return it, you will know how to respond to his request by applying a universal principle to the particular circuмstances. In this example, the universal principle is: return property to its owner.(2) So, using the virtue of prudence, you would apply that universal principle to the circuмstance that you have the man’s coin, and so you would return the coin to him.

Thus, your first error is to wrongly attempt to separate “questions of principle” from “questions of prudence”. The truth is that every matter of prudence is acting on principle!

Don’t you see that, if you and the SSPX say that your actions need not be “questions of principle”, then you would be saying you think you are free to act in any way you choose? But there’s more.

Your second error regarding prudence, is your misunderstanding how changed circuмstances(3) affect prudent actions. When ceasing to follow a prior principle (like no deal with unconverted Rome), you seem to think that it is an adequate explanation to simply invoke changed circuмstances. But although circuмstances might change which principle applies, there is always a different principle which then does apply.

Let us illustrate this point by an example: start with this general principle: return property to its owner. But man’s fallen human nature can cause exceptions to this principle.(4) Suppose, a man gives a gun to you for safekeeping and then suppose he becomes crazy and so asks you to return his gun because he wants to commit murder. In that circuмstance, prudence requires that another principle takes precedence and must be applied, viz., never give a gun to a madman.

So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting
to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar
Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition
of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.

Here is another way Archbishop Lefebvre formulated the same principle:

[W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while
waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman
authorities, in their minds. This will last for as long as the
Good Lord has foreseen.
Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.

_____________________________
FOOTNOTES
1. St. Thomas says it this way: “prudence … applies universal principles to the particular conclusions of practical matters.” Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIa IIae, Q.47, a.6.
2. In his Treatise on Prudence, St. Thomas phrases this universal principle of action as follows: “the restitution of a deposit to the depositor is in accordance with natural equality”. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.
3. We think it is plain that no relevant circuмstances have changed in Rome. In fact, if we had not been witnessing Bishop Fellay’s gradual slide into liberalism for many years, we would not have believed that anyone could be so naïve as to think that Assisi-hosting, mosque-praying, Vatican II-promoting Pope Benedict XVI was anything but a conciliar revolutionary. More on that below.
4. St. Thomas says it this way: “if human nature were always right, this [principle] would always have to be observed”. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1. The principle St. Thomas refers to, is the one quoted in footnote 2.

Page 3...........

[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]
.

Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer. It has never refuse contacts or discussions with Rome. It is PRUDENCE that has prevented them from coming to any agreement and submitting to the authority of Rome.

Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was a society principle (the quotes they give do not support such an assertion). However, if this were true it would mean the society as a principle refuses to submit to the authority of Rome (until some future, undetermined time).

So the question is how can the society simultaneously hold two contrary principles? I dare say the author(s) would deny the first or that the second replaced the first, but it make no difference; to deny or replace the first principle would make one schismatic.

To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle, and not as a matter of prudence as the society does, makes one a schismatic; a practical sedevacanist.

JPaul · « **Reply #36 on:** January 08, 2014, 02:18:26 PM »

Quote

Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #37 on:** January 08, 2014, 05:35:08 PM »

.from the Catholic Encyclopedia (I've introduced a few extra paragraph breaks for current expectations in readability) ...

Prudence

(Latin prudentia, contracted from providentia, seeing ahead).

One of the four cardinal virtues. Definitions of it are plentiful from Aristotle down. His "recta ratio agibilium" has the merits of brevity and inclusiveness. Father Rickaby aptly renders it as "right reason applied to practice." A fuller description and one more serviceable is this: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. It is to be observed that prudence, whilst possessing in some sort an empire over all the moral virtues, itself aims to perfect not the will but the intellect in its practical decisions. Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circuмstances. It indicates which, here and now, is the golden mean wherein the essence of all virtue lies. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. That is done by the particular moral virtue within whose province it falls.

Prudence, therefore, has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. The insight it confers makes one distinguish successfully between their mere semblance and their reality. It must preside over the eliciting of all acts proper to any one of them at least if they be taken in their formal sense.

Thus, without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. But it must not be forgotten that prudence is a virtue adequately distinct from the others, and not simply a condition attendant upon their operation. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circuмstances of time, place, manner, etc., which should be observed, and which the Scholastics comprise under the term medium rationis. So it is, that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue.

This is because the moral agent finds in it, if not the eliciting, at any rate the directive principle of virtuous actions. According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlvii, a. 8) it is its function to do three things: to take counsel, i.e., to cast about for the means suited in the particular case under consideration to reach the end of any one moral virtue; to judge soundly of the fitness of the means suggested; and, finally, to command their employment. If these are to be done well they necessarily exclude remissness and lack of concern; they demand the use of such diligence and care that the resultant act can be described as prudent, in spite of whatever speculative error may have been at the bottom of the process.

Readiness in finding out and ability in adapting means to an end does not always imply prudence. If the end happens to be a vicious one, a certain adroitness or sagacity may be exhibited in its pursuit. This, however, according to St. Thomas, will only deserve to be called false prudence and is identical with that referred to in Rom. viii. 6: "the wisdom of the flesh is death."

Besides the prudence which is the fruit of training and experience, and is developed into a stable habit by repeated acts, there is another sort termed "infused." This is directly bestowed by God's bounty. It is inseparable from the condition of supernatural charity and so is to be found only in those who are in the state of grace. Its scope of course is to make provision of what is necessary for eternal salvation. Although acquired prudence considered as a principle of operation is quite compatible with sin in the agent, still it is well to note that vice obscures or at times utterly beclouds its judgment. Thus it is true that prudence and the other moral virtues are mutually interdependent.

Imprudence in so far as it implies a want of obligatory prudence and not a mere gap in practical mentality is a sin, not however always necessarily distinct from the special wicked indulgence which it happens to accompany. If it proceeds to the length of formal scorn of the Divine utterances on the point, it will be a mortal sin.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #38 on:** January 08, 2014, 05:40:57 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

While it's nice of you to attempt to teach petwerp something, be aware he's not going to learn. He has decided far in advance what he wants to believe and regardless of the evidence and facts you show him, he is going to deny them, ignore them, and keep repeating the same old, tired canards that he repeats to himself when he practices self-hypnosis. So it's really a waste of your time to try to reach him. He is a devoted minion of Fr. Themann, or perhaps of his superior, who threatens others with 'consequences' if they don't tow the contagions of Menzingenitis.

But thanks for trying, anyway, J.Paul.

.

peterp · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:07:46 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

J.Paul,

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.

JPaul · « **Reply #40 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:15:03 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

J.Paul,

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.

0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?

peterp · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2014, 12:08:40 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

J.Paul,

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?

It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/

Matto · « **Reply #42 on:** January 09, 2014, 12:54:28 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.

0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?[/quote]

I have seen numerous quotes where Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the conciliar church as a seperate church from the Catholic Church and that the conciliar church is in schism. He said that if one becomes attatched to the conciliar church one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church and he also said that he didn't mind being excommunicated or suspended by the conciliar church because it was not the Catholic Church to which he was joined.

Sorry I don't have a link, I wrote this post from memory and don't remember where I read what I am talking about.

JPaul · « **Reply #43 on:** January 09, 2014, 01:14:32 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

J.Paul,

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?

It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/

The Society is not the arbiter of reality and its latest gleaning about the sect is that it is only "tendency" in the Church. We are seeing systematic downgrading of its definition by the SSPX and a concurrent lessening of the threat which it represents to the Church.
Be it a movement or an entity, it is the repository of something other that the Catholic religion which eliminates the possibility that it is the Catholic Church.

peterp · « **Reply #44 on:** January 09, 2014, 02:30:24 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
Neil,

This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?

J.Paul,

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?

It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/

The Society is not the arbiter of reality and its latest gleaning about the sect is that it is only "tendency" in the Church. We are seeing systematic downgrading of its definition by the SSPX and a concurrent lessening of the threat which it represents to the Church.
Be it a movement or an entity, it is the repository of something other that the Catholic religion which eliminates the possibility that it is the Catholic Church.

J.Paul,

The society is the arbiter of what it belives; it does not believe there are two churches and that the Church has defected. Neither has there been any "downgrading" in its definition:

i) The open letter to Cardinal Gantin (July 6, 1988) signed by the superior general and district superiors defines the "Conciliar Church" as a system.

ii) During an examination before the CDF (Jan 11/12, 1979) Archbishop Lefebvre gave his understanding of the term "Conciliar Church" as "a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass".