Author Topic: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC. (Read 2329 times)

StTherese · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2019, 09:41:01 AM »

In #9 and #10 the author confuses tradition with Tradition; the two are not the same.

Tradition: that part of the Church that cannot change, e.g. all Catholic doctrine is Tradition;
tradition: customs and practices under the authority of the Church, e.g. Friday abstinence.

Vatican II is part of tradition is a matter of fact in that it is (for good or ill) part of the Church’s history.

There is only one way in which Vatican II is neither part of Tradition or tradition and that’s if it was never a valid Church Council, and that could only be the case if the Pope at the time was never a Pope; viz. Sedevacantism.

XavierSem wrote “ hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever. “ and this is the problem. The author presents these quotes. But he either doesn’t comprehend them or is trying to construct a synthesis to imply some conclusion that simply doesn’t hold.

Mr G · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2019, 12:24:15 PM »

Quote from: StTherese on November 27, 2019, 09:40:02 AM

No it doesn’t. It’s abnormal solely for the reasons I adduced in my first paragraph; it would may no difference either way (whether they accepted the suppression or not).

The reason you give are virtual or subjective, but the objective fact is that:
the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that the SSPX are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth they have full canonical approval,

Much the same way that the 1988 excommunications were in fact non-existence, except in the minds of the Conciliar Hierarchy and most people due to the deception and lies they have been told.

Mr G · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2019, 12:45:24 PM »

Quote from: StTherese on November 27, 2019, 09:41:01 AM

In #9 and #10 the author confuses tradition with Tradition; the two are not the same.

Tradition: that part of the Church that cannot change, e.g. all Catholic doctrine is Tradition;
tradition: customs and practices under the authority of the Church, e.g. Friday abstinence.

Vatican II is part of tradition is a matter of fact in that it is (for good or ill) part of the Church’s history.

There is only one way in which Vatican II is neither part of Tradition or tradition and that’s if it was never a valid Church Council, and that could only be the case if the Pope at the time was never a Pope; viz. Sedevacantism.

XavierSem wrote “ hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever. “ and this is the problem. The author presents these quotes. But he either doesn’t comprehend them or is trying to construct a synthesis to imply some conclusion that simply doesn’t hold.

For reference, here is what she is referring to, as you can see the word "tradition" in all these quotes are NOT referring to mere history, custom or practices. Try inserting "customs and practices" every time you read the word "tradition" in all the below quotes and you can see the context in which they reefing it to" :

#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition):

In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it."
http://sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice

Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.

However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement:

"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Do you find Bishop Fellay's response to be a strong "refusal to admit that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church?"

StTherese · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2019, 04:51:41 PM »

#68 and #106. The author conflates the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity, and while they are related - one is the cause of the other - they are also distinct as Fr. Knittel explained. By way of an example:

Consider a soul aboard the ill-fated Titanic. He learns of a priest aboard (Fr. Thomas Byles) who's hearing confessions, so he decides to go. However, this penitent confesses a reserved sin such that the confessor cannot absolve him, he must wait until they arrive in New York and have recourse to the bishop. That evening the iceberg hits the ship. Suddenly there is a crisis - the ship is sinking - and for this individual there is a state of necessity - he needs to be absolved. In such circuмstances (danger of death) any priest can absolve a reserved sin, so the penitent returns to confession. But while waiting his turn he spots an empty seat on one of the lifeboats and decides to make a dash for it. Sometime later a rescue ship, the Carpathia, arrives and picks up the lifeboat occupants. On board this ship there is also a priest (Fr. Henry Burke) hearing confessions, so the penitent again presents himself for confession. But he can no longer be absolved because there is no longer a state of necessity - the individual has been rescued and is safe - even though the crisis - the sinking Titanic - is still on going.

It should be obvious that a state of necessity exists only in a specific circuмstance and only for as long as that circuмstance persists. Within the Society the state of necessity certainly existed, like the need to consecrate bishops, the need to absolve and marry, the needs of the faithful to have access to the traditional Mass and sacraments But with the freeing of the Mass, lifting of the excommunications, and granting the faculties of confession and marriage the state of necessity has diminished. That doesn’t mean it will not re-emerge in the future, e.g. the need to consecrate bishops without a mandate or an uncooperative diocesan bishop insisting on a N.O. Priest celebrates the Nuptial Mass, but until that time there is no longer a state of necessity, but the crisis continues.

StTherese · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2019, 04:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on November 27, 2019, 12:24:15 PM

The reason you give are virtual or subjective, but the objective fact is that:
the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that the SSPX are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth they have full canonical approval,

Much the same way that the 1988 excommunications were in fact non-existence, except in the minds of the Conciliar Hierarchy and most people due to the deception and lies they have been told.

"I have mercy on this crowd," Our Lord said, "for they are as sheep without a shepherd." This would indeed be your case if there was no traditional clergy. The Church takes account of this abnormal situation and therefore links you up with traditional priests by that link of authority which makes a pastor and a flock.
This is supplied jurisdiction. The Church supplies for the absence of the ordinary link between you and your priests. It creates a link on account of your spiritual needs.
I wonder why the author didn’t quote this?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC. (Read 2329 times)

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Mr G

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Mr G

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.