|
| ||||
|
I really like the good bishop's description of the movement as "fidelity" instead of "resistance" :incense:
You can't attach anything negative to a word like fidelity!
Plus, I don’t really like the attempt to put a positive spin on the description: I have no qualms about being described by a negative word. Reminding people that we are against something by the way we describe ourselves is more accurate and honest that choosing a term which says what we are for:
Unfortunately, at least in St. Mary's, KS, the term "Resistance" is usually associated with Fr. Pfeiffer , as they made and make the most noise (sending seminarians door to door). Although Fr. Novak, once told the 3rd Order group that Fr. Pfeiffer's group is not the Resistance, as the the real Resistance is in France (meaning SAJM). Yet, I think most people know that the "Resistance" is "against the SSPX", but against what specifically, that I think many do not know.
But if someone comes up to me and says, “I am part of the Resistance,” I know exactly what he is referring to.
I don't see fidelity as being in any way modernist. I am seeing it as faithful, loyal, steadfast, constant, firm, unwavering, I'm not going to change! And yes humble.
It has nothing to do with putting a positive spin on everything.
It's modernism that always has to be "in your face".
We can walk softly and still carry a big stick.
No I didn't say that fidelity is modernist, not at all. I understand why you like the term, it stands for all things noble. But it seems like a recurring complaint that the term Resistance is too negative. I am just saying in a general way that it might be a good exercise in self-reflection to examine why that makes people uncomfortable. It's in these little ways that we are influenced by the world we live in and we don't always realize it. It may not apply to you but there may very well be many people who feel pressured by the worldly influence to put a "positive" spin on everything, including the Resistance. But we happen to be a group of people who are brought together by something we are against. We are against any purely practical agreements with Rome. We are against working shoulder to shoulder with the conciliar sect. We are resisting not just the new direction of the SSPX, but Conciliarists, the world, the whole thing. That's how we stand apart from all the other trad groups. In our resistance. There should be no shame in that at all, even if it describes the negative. That's life. It's reality. We should embrace it like we would embrace "resisting" evil.:applause: :applause: :applause:
But we happen to be a group of people who are brought together by something we are against. We are against any purely practical agreements with Rome. We are against working shoulder to shoulder with the conciliar sect. We are resisting not just the new direction of the SSPX, but Conciliarists, the world, the whole thing. That's how we stand apart from all the other trad groups. In our resistance. There should be no shame in that at all, even if it describes the negative. That's life. It's reality. We should embrace it like we would embrace "resisting" evil.I too am against everything you stated.
I too am against everything you stated.
In the 1960's when the church left me I disagreed with everything Vat II stood for but people like myself worked at strengthening our faith and resolve and clung to the church of the past 2000 years. We were the pioneers of what is today called the resistance. We didn't run around attacking the people who went along with Vat II (like quite a few in the resistance today) when the opportunity arose we explained and showed them why the church of the last 2000 years was right. They couldn't argue with that, but had we ONLY attacked the new service they sure would have found ways to defend it. That was how tradition was kept alive.
In reality today if you are anti anything you get written off as a nut job and your message is disregarded. If you show truth and what is good you have a better chance of being successful.
We have ProLife (yes we are 100% anti-abortion) but can you imagine if we only referred to ourselves as anti abortion what the reaction would be?
If you're trying to convert a Moslem you don't just focus on the errors of his beliefs....you show him the truth of yours.
Today's Gospel tells us to be as wise as the children of mammon. Elsewhere in Scripture we're told to be cunning as a fox.
It's time to be a fox.
Sean,
What are the 2 great commandments? Love God with your whole mind, body, spirit and being...and love thy neighbor as thyself.
.
The commandments are not: Avoid evil, hate satan, and don't hurt your neighbor.
.
Pro-life is much more all-encompassing an ideal than simply, anti-abortion. "Traditionalist" or "orthodox" is more explanatory of Catholicism than Resistance. "Love of God" is wider and broader in scope than just avoiding evil.
.
It's much more than simply psychological branding; it's about the goal. The goal is to teach and preach the Faith, which is a positive thing. The goal is not to destroy contrary viewpoints/religions.
Are you of the deluded liberal position which believes that to be against something is unchawitabow?My point is that +ABL named his society of priests after St Pius X who was a staunch orthodox saint. He didn't name it the anti-V2 society.
Are you suggesting ABL failed in this regard when he attacked the modernists?
I am anti-modernist.
My point is that +ABL named his society of priests after St Pius X who was a staunch orthodox saint. He didn't name it the anti-V2 society.Didn’t St.PiusX say that we should fight the Modernists with fists? That sounds pretty anti-modernists to me.
.
The oath against modernism was so called because it was a condemnation of errors.
.
Sometimes situations call for being "for" something and sometimes you must condemn something. But I'm just against your earlier attitude that being always contrary to something is the best approach.
According to you softies, the Anti-Modernist Oath should have been the Pro-Fidelity Oath!
That St. Pius X should have learned about the two great commandments!!
The Oath Against ModernismPope Pius X - 1910THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .