Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)  (Read 1366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admin

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Reputation: +17/-0
    • CathInfo
Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
« on: August 19, 2017, 08:32:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXXVII (527)
    August 19, 2017
    Why Tradition?
    Sum up the Council for me, if you can!
    Why, yes – the true God must give way to man.

    If it is true that a generation of Traditional Catholics is growing up who do not know why they are Traditional, that is definitely one reason why the Society of St Pius X is “losing its savour” – see Mt. V, 13. To keep the Faith, every Catholic needs to know why he must follow Tradition. Now the Second Vatican Council was arguably the greatest single assault on Catholic Tradition in all the history of the Church. So let us look at a modernist encyclopedia’s useful ten-point summary of the new teaching of Vatican II, together with the briefest of pointers to the error in each point. The ten points are in italics, their skeletal refutation follows immediately each point:—
    1 The Church is, first and foremost, a mystery, or sacrament, and not primarily an organisation or institution. “Mystery” and “sacrament” are deliberately vague words to get away from the Church’s structure, but Our Lord clearly instituted Peter to lead His Apostles and disciples in the saving of souls. Peter is Pope, and in St Paul’s Epistles clearly Apostles become bishops and disciples become priests.
    2 The Church is the whole people of God, not just the hierarchy, clergy and religious. Of course the Catholic Church includes all Catholics as well as priests, but the priests are its backbone, or structure.
    3 The Church’s mission includes action on behalf of justice and peace and is not limited to the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the sacraments. Doctrine and sacraments are the basic means by which the Catholic Church has contributed more than anybody or anything to justice and peace in the world.
    4 The Church includes all Christians and is not limited to the Catholic Church. Non-catholic “Christians” can never be truly Christian, because they reject more or less of what Our Lord instituted.
    5 The Church is a communion, or college, of local churches, which are not simply administrative subdivisions of the Church Universal. Today’s chaos in “local churches” all over the world proves how they absolutely need to be united and administered by a sane Universal Pope in Rome.
    6 The Church is an eschatological community; it is not yet the Kingdom of God. Wherever souls are in the state of grace, there God is King, not only in Heaven but also already here below on earth.
    7 The lay apostolate is a direct participation in the apostolate of the Church and not simply a sharing in the mission of the hierarchy. As a human body needs both skeleton and flesh, so the Mystical Body of the Church needs both clergy and laity (cf. I Cor. XII). Opposite errors (clericalism and laicism) are generated by exaggerating the role of either. The Church needs both.
    8 There is a hierarchy of truths; not all teachings of the Church are equally binding or essential to the integrity of Catholic faith.< /i> Only non-dogmatic truths can be ranked in order of importance. All Catholic dogmas rank equally, because to deny just one is to deny God’s authority which is behind them all.
    9 God uses other Christian churches and non-Christian religions in offering salvation to all mankind; the Catholic Church is not the only means of salvation. To all men alive God offers graces sufficient for salvation. These may come to men IN non-Christian religions or non-Catholic “churches,” but they can never come THROUGH anybody or anything except through Jesus Christ and His one Catholic Church.
    10 The dignity of the human person and the freedom of the act of faith are the foundation of religious liberty for all, over against the view that “error has no rights.” Catholicism being the only true religion, then the only true religious liberty is the liberty to be Catholic. Error indeed has no rights.
    Kyrie eleison.
    P.S. On Sunday September 10, after Mass at 10h00, Dr David White will give three lectures in Broadstairs on Fr Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), Jesuit priest and important English poet.

    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 993
    • Reputation: +561/-42
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #1 on: August 19, 2017, 09:28:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • What Tradition?

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B985_Rites.html

    Paul VI vs. Pius XII


    TIA,

    Re: Was My First Communion Valid?

     A Pope can 'clarify' what a former Pontiff has written, but to disobey a former Vicar's Apostolic Constitution seems 'suspect'.

     Pope Pius XII wrote Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947 declaring that any substantial alteration in the rite would render the sacrament invalid.

     Paul VI did not care; just like the Mass, he wasted no time and went to work on almost all the sacraments to bring them into line with Modernist thinking.

     He produced his own Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani' and basically said, this is the way we will 'ordain' in the future.

     When you lay the two written forms out before you, it 'seems' that both the matter and form have been changed in Paul VI's document and that there is at least doubt as to whether the ordinand has been given the power to effect Transubstantiation.

     Doubt is cause for invalidity...

     Why has this subject not been openly discussed?

     God Bless your work,

          OAMDG,

          J.R.

    ______________________


     TIA responds:

     J.R.

     We maintain that a Pope can undo any decision of another Pope as long as it is not against the Faith, as in the case of liturgy and the rites of the Sacraments.

     The evidence in this regard is that St. Pius V forbade under penalty of the most rigorous anathema that anyone change the Divine Office and the Breviary in his Bull Quod a nobis. Nonetheless, St. Pius X disregarded all those threats and changed both the Breviary and the Divine Office.

     He was not anathematized nor cursed by the wrath of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, as promised in the Bull of St. Pius V.

     The conclusion seems quite clear: St. Pius X did not comply with the rules of St. Pius V because the rules that a Pope issues requires the obedience of everyone in the Catholic Church, except another Pope. So long as the Faith is not involved, a Pope is not subordinate to another Pope in matters of liturgy and rites. All Popes have the same authority. What this means is that one can undo what the other one did.

     We dealt more at length with this topic here.

     So, the question of saying that Paul VI could not change the rules Pius XII established is transferred to another topic: Was Paul VI a valid Pope or not? If he was, he had the right to change the rites; if he was not, he did not have this right.

     We believe that Paul VI - as well as the other conciliar Popes - are valid Popes, even if they had the worst spirit possible when they made those changes and defended heresies such as the heresy of universal salvation.

     Therefore, we believe Paul VI had the right to change the rites of the Sacraments and consequently, they are valid Sacraments.

          Cordially,

          TIA correspondence desk


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2406
    • Reputation: +2616/-296
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #2 on: August 19, 2017, 11:03:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    4 The Church includes all Christians and is not limited to the Catholic Church. Non-catholic “Christians” can never be truly Christian, because they reject more or less of what Our Lord instituted.

    I have a bit of a problem with this postulate.  We were among so-called "traditional Catholics" for years.  These are people who, according to H.E. accept "more or less what Our Lord instituted."  By his definition, these are true Christians.  Really?  Many of them, ourselves included and numbers of traditional priests, did not often exude much practical Christian behavior.  But because we all bought into the institutional narrative, we were truly Christian.  Whereas, those self-confessed "Christians" of other persuasions, who did not, and do not, can not be included among the institutionally 'washed.'
    No, from our perspective presently, H.E. is going to have to do better than this.  I find this postulate intellectually indefensible.

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 942
    • Reputation: +752/-145
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #3 on: August 19, 2017, 12:35:46 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a bit of a problem with this postulate.  We were among so-called "traditional Catholics" for years.  These are people who, according to H.E. accept "more or less what Our Lord instituted."  By his definition, these are true Christians.  Really?  Many of them, ourselves included and numbers of traditional priests, did not often exude much practical Christian behavior.  But because we all bought into the institutional narrative, we were truly Christian.  Whereas, those self-confessed "Christians" of other persuasions, who did not, and do not, can not be included among the institutionally 'washed.'
    No, from our perspective presently, H.E. is going to have to do better than this.  I find this postulate intellectually indefensible.
    :confused: :confused: :confused:

    I'm missing something here...

    Either I'm not understanding what the Bishop wrote or I'm not understanding your critique... or maybe both.

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #4 on: August 19, 2017, 12:50:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :confused: :confused: :confused:

    I'm missing something here...

    Either I'm not understanding what the Bishop wrote or I'm not understanding your critique... or maybe both.
    Same
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2945
    • Reputation: +1449/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #5 on: August 19, 2017, 12:59:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Number DXXVII (527)
    August 19, 2017
    So let us look at a modernist encyclopedia’s useful ten-point summary of the new teaching of Vatican II, together with the briefest of pointers to the error in each point. The ten points are in italics, their skeletal refutation follows immediately each point:—

    Bishop Williamson is listing ten points of the modernist encyclopedia (in italics), with a refutation that follows, but apparently, there isn't a refutation for some of the points, or the refutations were also mistakenly put in italics, therefore making it difficult to know which are the modernist points, and what is +W's refutation.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #6 on: August 19, 2017, 10:24:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I noticed  this too:
    Bishop Williamson is listing ten points of the modernist encyclopedia (in italics), with a refutation that follows, but apparently, there isn't a refutation for some of the points, or the refutations were also mistakenly put in italics, therefore making it difficult to know which are the modernist points, and what is +W's refutation.

    .
    There is a glitch in the last part of the OP.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3716/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2017, 12:27:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is just more white noise to keep the masses occupied.
    We have here the admission that this so called council teaches error harmful to the Faith.  What concrete conclusion does he draw from this?
    Come to Broadstairs and listen to a literary lecture.


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #8 on: August 20, 2017, 12:49:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is just more white noise to keep the masses occupied.
    We have here the admission that this so called council teaches error harmful to the Faith.  What concrete conclusion does he draw from this?
    Come to Broadstairs and listen to a literary lecture.
    Yep. This. Never mind the hide in plain site question (posed by WHO and, ALLEGEDLY, what?) which equates to "Why Catholicism?"
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 942
    • Reputation: +752/-145
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Why Tradition? (no. 527)
    « Reply #9 on: August 20, 2017, 02:55:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is just more white noise to keep the masses occupied.
    We have here the admission that this so called council teaches error harmful to the Faith.  What concrete conclusion does he draw from this?
    Come to Broadstairs and listen to a literary lecture.
    Better than stuff"n one's face with coffee and donuts...

    I'd be there in a heartbeat if it weren't for a ocean between me and it...  :P

    Have you ever even attended a conference by Dr White?

     

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