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

Author Topic: Arguing Awry  (Read 6194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MaterDominici

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 5441
  • Reputation: +4155/-96
  • Gender: Female
Arguing Awry
« on: June 27, 2015, 08:05:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Arguing Awry

    Should Menzingen ask Rome for recognition?
    No! How can apostates grant such a petition?


    In the latest issue of the Society of St Pius X’s internal publication (mainly for Society priests), “Cor Unum,” the Superior General publishes arguments to defend and justify his relentless pursuit of the SSPX’s incorporation into the mainstream Church. He argues that the Society is right to be talking to today’s Roman officials. He presents basically two arguments. These need to be examined if they are not to continue creating confusion.

    The first of the two arguments runs as follows: The Catholic Church, as the Immaculate Bride of Christ, is much more than just its corrupt officials, because it is a whole of which these officials are merely a part. But the Catholic Society of St Pius X must remain in contact with the Catholic Church. Therefore it must maintain contact, and continue to negotiate, with the corrupt officials.

    The argument is easy to refute, as soon as one brings into view the Faith. Indeed Catholics must draw from the Immaculate Bride of Christ whatever they need to get to Heaven, but it is never from the corruption of the corrupt Church officials that they will be able to draw their spiritual life. And if these officials are so corrupt in the Faith that contact with them positively endangers that faith of Catholics which is the very basis of Catholics’ spiritual life, then Catholics must positively avoid such officials. Now the neo-modernism of today’s Roman officials is highly corrupt and corrupting, all the more objectively dangerous for its being more or less, on their part, subjectively innocent. Therefore Catholics wishing to keep the faith must stay well away from these Romans. “Cor Unum” argues as though neo-modernists present no danger to the Faith!

    Archbishop Lefebvre drew the correct conclusion. When in the spring of 1988 he did everything he could have done (even, one may say, more than he should have done) to get the Roman officials to do their duty to look after Catholic Tradition, and even after over 10 years of the Archbishop’s efforts, they still refused, showing that, far from wanting to look after Tradition, they merely wanted to absorb it into their Newchurch, then the Archbishop concluded thay they were so corrupt in the Faith that he would have nothing more to do with them until they professed once more the Faith of the great anti-liberal papal docuмents, such as the Syllabus, Pascendi, and Quas Primas.

    For indeed the Faith does not exist for the appointed Church officials, but they exist for the Faith. So if their fruits demonstrate beyond any doubt that they are destroying the Faith, then, to defend the Faith, not only should the Society not be talking to the Conciliar officials, it should, while observing all charity and respect, be fleeing them like the plague, for fear of itself being infected by their dangerously infectious Conciliar errors, unless and until, exactly as Archbishop Lefebvre sa id, they show that they are quitting their Conciliarism and coming back to true Catholic doctrine.

    The second argument is that Rome’s granting of bishops to visit the Society’s seminaries (including Écône) is proof of Rome’s “benevolence” towards the Society, because Rome is “at a loss how to deal with the Society.” And once more a swallow here and there is taken to be signifying the summer of Rome’s conversion. The naivete is breathtaking. Rome knows exactly how to deal with the Society: send Conciliar bishops into Society seminaries to show its future priests how nice the Conciliar churchmen are. Then eventually the Society will just flow into the Newchurch.

    The SSPX has no business to be asking for anything whatsoever from these Roman officials, appointees perhaps, apostates certainly. And if it gives them to think that, objectively and collectively, they are anything other than apostates, it will be “like to them, a liar” (cf. Jn. VIII, 55).

    Kyrie eleison.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson


    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5441
    • Reputation: +4155/-96
    • Gender: Female
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #1 on: June 27, 2015, 08:07:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DONATE
    While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating [the] site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made ... by sending a contribution via PayPal to :
    donations@stmarcelinitiative.com.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson


    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1953/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #2 on: June 28, 2015, 05:09:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you tie yourself to R & R thinking in any way, it weakens your position. In fact you don't have a position. Your religious life is predicated on whatever contemporary Rome is and does and you are not intellectually brave enough to consider the Church without this restrictive historical perspective.  It is perverse to become a martyr to the antithesis of a cause which is now the new ideology in Rome. With her blessing Christians throughout the world are now required to support things which are not Christian and to oppose things which are.

    Excusing Romans for being "subjectively innocent" is another R & R cop-out. I do not believe an appearance of a succession grants them such a mantle of innocence. From the outset they are as guilty as sin because of their deliberate usurpation. From that moment they lost all authority. Again the bishop is clutching at straws.

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #3 on: June 28, 2015, 06:03:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    If you tie yourself to R & R thinking in any way, it weakens your position. In fact you don't have a position. Your religious life is predicated on whatever contemporary Rome is and does and you are not intellectually brave enough to consider the Church without this restrictive historical perspective.  It is perverse to become a martyr to the antithesis of a cause which is now the new ideology in Rome. With her blessing Christians throughout the world are now required to support things which are not Christian and to oppose things which are.

    Excusing Romans for being "subjectively innocent" is another R & R cop-out. I do not believe an appearance of a succession grants them such a mantle of innocence. From the outset they are as guilty as sin because of their deliberate usurpation. From that moment they lost all authority. Again the bishop is clutching at straws.


    The sede rot continues.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #4 on: June 28, 2015, 08:48:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    If you tie yourself to R & R thinking in any way, it weakens your position. In fact you don't have a position. Your religious life is predicated on whatever contemporary Rome is and does and you are not intellectually brave enough to consider the Church without this restrictive historical perspective.  It is perverse to become a martyr to the antithesis of a cause which is now the new ideology in Rome. With her blessing Christians throughout the world are now required to support things which are not Christian and to oppose things which are.

    Excusing Romans for being "subjectively innocent" is another R & R cop-out. I do not believe an appearance of a succession grants them such a mantle of innocence. From the outset they are as guilty as sin because of their deliberate usurpation. From that moment they lost all authority. Again the bishop is clutching at straws.


    I agree with you, seeing that the Bishop argues that they are apostates, men who have left or willfully turned away from the religion to adopt another. They are therefore dead members.
    How then do they continue to represent the authority of the True Church of Christ?

    How then does the Church deal with apostates and heretics? She cuts them off, She excommunicates them. But in the Bishop's world, She leaves them in place to corrupt and destroy souls because they might be of some speculative innocent good will.
    Invincible ignorance gone awry....


    Offline Emerentiana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1420
    • Reputation: +1194/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #5 on: June 28, 2015, 11:56:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •   :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #6 on: June 28, 2015, 12:14:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Emerentiana
     :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!



    Sedevacantism is not Catholic,it is a protestant mindset.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #7 on: June 28, 2015, 01:39:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: richard
    Quote from: Emerentiana
     :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!



    Sedevacantism is not Catholic,it is a protestant mindset.


    Culpable ingnorance is as well.

    We are not speaking about sedevacantism, we are speaking about self contradictory ideas and illogic.



    Offline saintalice

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 88
    • Reputation: +51/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #8 on: June 28, 2015, 01:58:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The so-called R&R position is not only illogical it goes against the Council of Ephesus Canon VII.  The first part of the canon reads as follows:

    Quote
    Canon VII.
    When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
    But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.



    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html

    When the Roman Catholic Church dogmatized the Pope as the ultimate authority of the Church at First Vatican Council in the 19th century (19th century, let that sink in), which he never was so from the beginning (read the Councils it's all there in black and white) they shot themselves in the foot.  The continual arrogance of Rome throughout the second millennium is its undoing.  Until Roman Catholics are wiling to see the real truth, they will continually be battling themselves.  Nevertheless..."you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #9 on: June 28, 2015, 02:45:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: richard
    Quote from: Emerentiana
     :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!



    Sedevacantism is not Catholic,it is a protestant mindset.


    R&R I'm afraid is even more Protestant.  There are serious problems with the theology of BOTH sides, but they're all too entrenched in their egos to even consider the objections being made by the other side.  Your one-liner quips are decidedly unhelpful.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #10 on: June 28, 2015, 02:50:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    I agree with you, seeing that the Bishop argues that they are apostates, men who have left or willfully turned away from the religion to adopt another. They are therefore dead members.

    How then do they continue to represent the authority of the True Church of Christ?


    There is in fact an entire school of thought that says exactly this ... papa haereticus ab ecclesia deponendus.

    I find the position articulated by Father Chazal to be the most persuasive; he in fact states that these Popes have NO authority (not authority when they've right but no authority when they're wrong) due to their being "quarantined" on account of heresy.  In other words, they've lost the ability to formally exercise authority while materially occupying the Holy see.

    This problem steers clear of the major problems with both R&R and SVism.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #11 on: June 28, 2015, 02:53:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: Emerentiana
     :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!



    Sedevacantism is not Catholic,it is a protestant mindset.


    R&R I'm afraid is even more Protestant.  There are serious problems with the theology of BOTH sides, but they're all too entrenched in their egos to even consider the objections being made by the other side.  Your one-liner quips are decidedly unhelpful.

    Making no judgement upon the merits of either position, it is clear that one position opposes the destruction of the Church and the other, while claiming to defend the Church, is in the last analysis, enabling the destroyers to continue their evil work.

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #12 on: June 28, 2015, 06:05:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: Emerentiana
     :applause: :applause:

    Great post J Paul!   This is the center of the  error  of  "Recognize and Resist."  Its an illogical position  that is NOT Catholic!



    Sedevacantism is not Catholic,it is a protestant mindset.


    R&R I'm afraid is even more Protestant.  There are serious problems with the theology of BOTH sides, but they're all too entrenched in their egos to even consider the objections being made by the other side.  Your one-liner quips are decidedly unhelpful.

    Making no judgement upon the merits of either position, it is clear that one position opposes the destruction of the Church and the other, while claiming to defend the Church, is in the last analysis, enabling the destroyers to continue their evil work.


    So what is your solution?

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #13 on: June 28, 2015, 06:51:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • richard,
    Quote
    So what is your solution?


    Before one can attempt to formulate some remedy, they must make an accurate determination of the objective reality of the situation.
    Neither can be achieved, if one does not submit to that reality.

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Arguing Awry
    « Reply #14 on: June 28, 2015, 07:25:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    richard,
    Quote
    So what is your solution?


    Before one can attempt to formulate some remedy, they must make an accurate determination of the objective reality of the situation.
    Neither can be achieved, if one does not submit to that reality.


    So you don't have a solution then?