Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 49

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 57870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2019, 08:35:53 PM »
Quote from: drew on January 04, 2019, 04:43:59 PM
The great problem with defending traditional Catholicism is that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith and regarded the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  Those he formed hold the same opinion including the sedevacantists who were expelled in 1983 and use the pre-1956 Missal.  They both argue that the pope is the "master of the liturgy" and can do whatever he wants as long as he does not injure the faith.  Both have made themselves the judge of what or what does not constitute injury to the faith.  Neither appeal to dogma.  It is a no win argument.   
Straw-man much?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2019, 10:46:28 PM »
Quote from: Stanley N on January 04, 2019, 08:35:53 PM
Straw-man much?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.

Straw-man? Not only have you not identified the "straw-man" in the argument, you have replied only with the appeal to human authority, the weakest of all arguments.  Nice to hear you affirm that Archbishop Lefebvre theoretically "is not infallible" and then profess your "amusement" when a specific practical examples of fallibility are pointed out. 
 
I have simply stated two facts regarding Archbishop Lefebvre.   It is a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith.  This is best exemplified by his belief that any Hindu as a Hindu, Moslem as a Moslem, Jew as a Jew, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., could be a secret member of the Church, in a state of sanctifying grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir to heaven without believing in any revealed truth of the Catholic faith, without receiving any sacrament, without being a member of the Church, and without being subject to the Roman pontiff.  Everyone of these dogmatic truths were re-casted as mere axiomatic preceptive norms and summarily set aside because of assumed invincible physical or psychological impediments.
 
He also held the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  All you have to do to confirm this fact is read the defense offered by the SSPX for the adoption of the 1962 Missal in 1983 after expelling the Nine who were sedevacantists.  The argument was essentially a test for accepting papal authority to do as he willed regarding liturgical changes.  The only caveat offered is that these changes cannot be "harmful to the faith".   It was Fr. Williamson who wrote the defense of the SSPX against the Nine.  Fr. Richard Williamson affirmed that the pope was the "master of liturgy".  The Nine agreed with this argument but rejected the pope.  When Fr. Williamson (and Fr. Laisney as well) was asked by "Rubricarias", the English publisher at St. Lawrence Press who prints the pre-1956 Ordo which Bishop Williamson used before 1983, how the 1965 liturgy was harmful and the 1962 liturgy was not, no reply offered.  When asked if the 1965 liturgy was not necessarily harmful, how could two papal docuмents (reforms mandated by Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecuмenici by Paul VI) imposing those 1965 liturgical changes be ignored if the pope is the "master of the liturgy", no reply.  Before 1983, the 1965 Missal and later changes were routinely used at Econe.  What happened in 1983 to make Archbishop Lefebvre reject all post 1962 changes that had been previously accepted?  This is eighteen years after the fact.  When you claim the liturgy is a matter of mere discipline and the pope is the "master of the liturgy", you have a serious problem because you become the person judge of the liturgical changes determining what is and what is not "harmful to the faith".  That argument is for losers as we see played out every day.
 
So you think this is amusing?  The SSPX has already betrayed Catholic tradition because they did not know how to defend it.  They claimed to be entering "doctrinal discussions" with Rome, but not holding to the dogma as their rule of faith, they never got beyond the exchange of opinions which it the end of dialogue.  They have utterly failed to understand the nature of dogma or see the relationship between dogma and liturgy.  The Resistance is not going to do any better unless they come to terms with these two essential problems.  Both  these positions held by Archbishop Lefebvre are wrong.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline. 

And I have already proved these two propositions.  Dogma as the proximate rule of faith is proven by the definition of heresy necessarily.  And the Tridentine Profession of Faith cited in the previous post is sufficient to prove that liturgy cannot be a matter of mere discipline.

Lastly, I have a lot sympathy for Archbishop Lefebvre.  There has been a significant number of important liturgical publications since 1990 that he may have benefitted from.  But that was nearly thirty years ago.  We are surrounded by a massive failure of traditional Catholic structures by those who should have known better.  
 
Drew

Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2019, 01:00:58 AM »
Quote from: drew on January 04, 2019, 10:46:28 PM
Straw-man? Not only have you not identified the "straw-man" in the argument, [....]

[....] And the Tridentine Profession of Faith cited in the previous post is sufficient to prove that liturgy cannot be a matter of mere discipline.
I quoted some straw in my first reply.
You assert Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgy was a matter of "mere discipline" as if no dogma was involved. That's a straw man.
I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood the relation between liturgy and dogma better than you.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2019, 06:35:49 AM »
Quote from: Stanley N on January 05, 2019, 01:00:58 AM
I quoted some straw in my first reply.
You assert Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgy was a matter of "mere discipline" as if no dogma was involved. That's a straw man.
I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood the relation between liturgy and dogma better than you.

I have provided evidence for my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre did not regard dogma as his rule of faith and therefore, could not see the relationship between liturgy and dogma.  If you think this is a "straw-man" then you must refute the evidence with your own to support your accusation.

I might add that Rome is currently destroying conservative Catholic groups with traditional sentiments while herding traditional Catholic groups into a common corral for the purpose of control and/or destruction.  If the Resistance is to have any success it must first recognize dogma as the proximate rule of faith and then see and defend the necessary relationship between dogma and liturgy.  From a foundation of Catholic dogmatic truth they can work to establish loose confederations of resistance chapels as focal points of confrontation to local ordinaries. 

Drew
Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2019, 08:38:33 AM »
Quote from: drew on January 05, 2019, 06:35:49 AM
I have provided evidence for my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre did not regard dogma as his rule of faith and therefore, could not see the relationship between liturgy and dogma.  If you think this is a "straw-man" then you must refute the evidence with your own to support your accusation.
No, I do not need to do that. If you have a claim, it is your job to prove it.

What you have done is say that Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to your version of EENS. From there you go to the broad claim he "did not regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith". Perhaps your "evidence" doesn't support your claim, because, for instance, your claim is too broad.

Frankly, you could work on communication. Try defining the terms you use, so that it does not appear that you are using them in different senses in different places.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 49
« previous next »