Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014  (Read 1644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Defender

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Reputation: +91/-14
  • Gender: Male
ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
« on: June 01, 2014, 07:12:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Number CCCLIX (359)   31st May 2014

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CHURCH INFALLIBILITY -- V

    Liberalism is war on God, and it is the dissolution of truth. Within today’s Church crippled by liberalism, sedevacantism is an understandable reaction, but it still credits authority with too much power over truth. The modern world has lost natural truth, let alone supernatural truth, and here is the heart of the problem.

    For our purposes we might divide all papal teaching into three parts. Firstly, if the Pope teaches as Pope, on Faith or morals, definitively and so as to bind all Catholics, then we have his Extraordinary Magisterium (EM for short), necessarily infallible. Secondly, if he does not engage all four conditions but teaches in line with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and imposed on Catholics to believe, then he is partaking in what is called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium” (OUM for short), also infallible. Thirdly we have the rest of his teaching, which, if it is out of line with Tradition, is not only fallible but also false.

    By now it should be clear that the EM is to the OUM as snow-cap is to mountain. The snow-cap does not make the summit of the mountain, it merely makes it more visible. EM is to OUM as servant to master. It exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM. But what makes the rest of the mountain visible, so to speak, is its being traceable back to Our Lord and his Apostles, in other words, Tradition. That is why every EM definition is at pains to show that what is being defined was always previously part of Tradition. It was mountain before it was covered in snow.

    By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp. Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father, for instance: “My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me” (VII, 16), or, “I have not spoken from out of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (XII, 49). Of course nobody on earth is more authorized than the Pope to tell Church and world what is in Tradition, but he cannot tell Church or world that there is in Tradition what is not in it. What is in it is objective, now 2,000 years old, it is above the Pope and it sets limits to what a Pope can teach , just as the Father’s commandment set limits to what Christ as man would teach.

    Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

    Mother of God, obtain for me to love, discern and defend that Truth and order coming from the Father, both supernatural and natural, to which your own Son was as man subject, “unto death, even to the death of the Cross”.

    Kyrie eleison

    The loss of objective truth in depth explains

    The Church’s sedevac and liberal pains.
     

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #1 on: June 01, 2014, 09:52:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yet Another!!...................Kyrie Eleison......... :facepalm:


    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 996
    • Reputation: +562/-42
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 01:29:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Yet Another!!...................Kyrie Eleison......... :facepalm:


    A friend, who supports the Resistance, says that the EC dated 24/4/2014 has upset some of the Resistance supporters in Britain.

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2199/-1142
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #3 on: June 02, 2014, 04:34:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Yet Another!!...................Kyrie Eleison......... :facepalm:


    Predictions on length of thread?  LOL
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 07:22:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement


    Suffice it to say that the Traditional "movement" was instituted long before Archbishop Lefebvre. There were courageous and principled priests who refused the Conciliar revolution from its inception as far back as the 1960's, when ABL's signature was upon the Conciliar documents was still drying.

    This present series of the Bishop's has a certain air of unreality about it.
    It is strange indeed.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8256/-638
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 11:50:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Your excerpt..
    Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote from: your excerpt
    This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement


    Suffice it to say that the Traditional "movement" was instituted long before Archbishop Lefebvre. There were courageous and principled priests who refused the Conciliar revolution from its inception as far back as the 1960's, when ABL's signature was upon the Conciliar documents was still drying.

    This present series of the Bishop's has a certain air of unreality about it.
    It is strange indeed.


    ..omits the context, and then you presume to micro-analyze one sentence.  While the literal meaning of the sentence allows your interpretation, the context would show your criticism to be quite narrow and unfair.  It is the principle of papal authority and the preservation of a proper understanding of this principle within the Society that ABL founded (in France, "within Tradition" refers specifically to what's going on in the SSPX, frequently, and this can be exemplified), which is the topic of these ECs in this series.

    If you're looking for reasons to mutter opposition and to pick fault with every word, you're looking at +W's writings as if his methods are as questionable as the noxious notions expressed in the words and writings of +Fellay.    

    Here is the context:

    Quote

    By now it should also be clear that

    Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp.

    Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father, for instance: “My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me” (VII, 16), or, “I have not spoken from out of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (XII, 49). Of course nobody on earth is more authorized than the Pope to tell Church and world what is in Tradition, but he cannot tell Church or world that there is in Tradition what is not in it. What is in it is objective, now 2,000 years old, it is above the Pope and it sets limits to what a Pope can teach , just as the Father’s commandment set limits to what Christ as man would teach.

    Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

    Mother of God, obtain for me to love, discern and defend that Truth and order coming from the Father, both supernatural and natural, to which your own Son was as man subject, “unto death, even to the death of the Cross”.

    Kyrie eleison

    The loss of objective truth in depth explains

    The Church’s sedevac and liberal pains.



    Why would you not bother, J.Paul, to mention what comes immediately before your snippet without mentioning what preceded it or followed it?  

    It would seem that if you had included the context you would not have been providing a sound argument since the context shows your claim to be hollow:

    "By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp. Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father,..."

    Why don't you accuse Jesus Christ of not having founded the Church, since what He taught came not from Him but from His Father?  

    +W provides a very apt analogy here, that what ABL founded (objectively the SSPX in general, and the Traditional movement within the SSPX in particular), came not from ABL but from the longstanding Sacred Apostolic Tradition that was handed down to him, and to what he refers in the inscription he had bequeathed as instruction for what his memorial at his tomb should say:  "TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI."  

    Maybe you didn't know that.  

    It means, "I have handed on down (to you) that which I have received (from the Apostles)."  This is firstly and most obviously the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession in his consecration of 4 bishops, but it is also the faithful understanding of Church Tradition, which BTW includes what authority means in the Church and how it is understood in practice.  He could not enforce that outside the Society, but it was enough of a challenge to somehow preserve it WITHIN the Society that he founded.

    Therefore this "air of unreality" of which you accuse +W is a myopic and self-serving criticism that ignores the larger picture.  

    "Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round."  The Popes do not arbitrarily invent what they want us to think constitutes Tradition.   +W was trying to be brief.  Perhaps his brevity leaves room for misunderstanding.  

    To drag out the literal implication of his sentence here would be to accuse him of saying something that I don't think he intended, namely, The Popes do not tell Tradition what to teach.   I suspect he would not have written that.  Reason being that what constitutes "Tradition" to one person might not be what another would think.  Our Lord criticized the Jews for practicing "the traditions of men" but He was referring to accretions that were unwritten at that time but would later emerge in the Talmud.  

    The Talmud is to the legitimate Church what the Newcode of Canon Law is to Apostolic Tradition.  But +W can't say that, (but I can, thanks to Matthew) as you know, because he would be at risk for further sanctions as "anti-Semitic" (even in that stupid court case in Germany that still lingers on) largely because +F is too much of a coward to defend his own brother bishop's proper and just pronouncements.  

    If Pope Paul VI was the worst pope in history, what does it imply to compare his effects to those of the current SG of the Society?  Would you, J.Paul prefer to defend Paul VI and +F and what they've done to the Church and to the preservation of Tradition?

    You, J.Paul, should not be taking up arms against +W, who is on our side;  and you, J.Paul, should not be nit-picking for needles in the haystack.  


    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #6 on: June 02, 2014, 12:31:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil, you frequently correct other's small errors in grammar or usage and this is all for the good. Here, the matter is corrected easily by  saying that,
    Quote
    This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded HIS Traditional movement, as opposed to what was said,
    "This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded THE Traditional movement"



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #7 on: June 02, 2014, 01:09:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You, J.Paul, should not be taking up arms against +W, who is on our side;  and you, J.Paul, should not be nit-picking for needles in the haystack.  


    I am neither picking up arms against the Bishop, or nit-picking.
    I pointed out a needless and confusing mistake, and I would cast out the whole haystack of this series. The weekly dosing of folks with contradictory R&R doctrine which has the result of  joining in on the Menzigen/resistance anti-sedevacantist campaign.

    The Church is not collapsing due to Bishop Fellay's follies or John Lane's and Father Cekada's expositions of an empty chair. It is the grinding relentless progress being made by the Conciliar revolutionaries in Rome and in the chanceries, and synagogue like churches of the New Order.

    Relatively speaking, the SSPX/resistance/sedevacantist world is a side show, distracting and diverting energies and minds from turning to address the true source of the Church's crisis.

    Catholicism needs a an authentic resistance to battle the disease which imperils us. The time for discoursing over symptoms is long past.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLIX - May 31st, 2014
    « Reply #8 on: June 02, 2014, 06:50:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote
    This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement


    Suffice it to say that the Traditional "movement" was instituted long before Archbishop Lefebvre. There were courageous and principled priests who refused the Conciliar revolution from its inception as far back as the 1960's, when ABL's signature was upon the Conciliar documents was still drying.

    This present series of the Bishop's has a certain air of unreality about it.
    It is strange indeed.


    Yes. However, the fact remains that, were it not for Archbishop Lefebvre, Traditional Catholicism would not be what it is today. Also, were it not for Bishop Williamson, most Catholic laity would probably not even be aware of the New World Order.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16