Author Topic: No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First (Read 11271 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2014, 06:36:51 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
“No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/02/24/no-canonical-agreement-prior-to-a-doctrinal-resolution-is-a-catholic-principle/

This is just a rehash of the "Open Letter to Fr. Themann" with the same fallacies and a reference to Satis Cognitum which doesn't help you. The Church in one, formed through unity of faith and of communion. There are to ways of separating oneself from her (i) by renouncing the faith - heresy, (ii) refusing her authority - schism.

To refuse her authority as a principle is schismatic. This has never been the position of the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre. Hence the quote "let them first make us such an offer!", how could he say such a thing if he refused Rome's authority as a principle?

Please point out where the fallacy is.

These were addressed in the "Open Letter to Fr. Themann" thread. As I wrote above "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was never a principle of the archbishop or the society; you confuse principle and prudence.

Putting aside the Archbishop's position, the thesis of the article is that "no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution" is a Catholic principle. Show me where you disagree.

Graham · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2014, 08:08:04 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
No, this is the issue. The resistance have "no agreement without Rome's conversion" as a principle. Hence they refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle; this is schismatic. Whereas the society refuse as a matter of prudence (where it can submit it will). You are wrong on both counts (i) the final canonical structure was never finalized (ii) the N.O. Mass was not accepted as legitimate, only its promulgation as Archbishop Lefebvre accepted.

Who needs the conversion of Rome? The resistance and the Society both accept Rome and recognize Conciliar Rome as the Church. What difference will an agreement make?
Rome has what it wants, it has no incentive to convert and neither the parent nor the child give them any reason or need to do so.

It is a meaningless debate as it stands, and will remain so unless or until a real resistance to the Conciliar sect is raised up to confront it.

Look more carefully: it's Menzingen which no longer distinguishes between Rome and Conciliar Rome, as ABL always did. This re-frame is at the bottom of most neo-SSPX self-justification, such as that of PeterP above. Look for instance at the conferences of Fr . Pflüger in Lavigny - ABL's distinction is nary in sight. They have changed their "crisis ecclesiology".

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2014, 11:01:20 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Look more carefully: it's Menzingen which no longer distinguishes between Rome and Conciliar Rome, as ABL always did. This re-frame is at the bottom of most neo-SSPX self-justification, such as that of PeterP above. Look for instance at the conferences of Fr . Pflüger in Lavigny - ABL's distinction is nary in sight. They have changed their "crisis ecclesiology".

We don`t need to get into the Catholic Church vs. Conciliar Church argument to defend the thesis that "No canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution" is a Catholic principle.

peterp · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2014, 04:22:38 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Who needs the conversion of Rome? The resistance and the Society both accept Rome and recognize Conciliar Rome as the Church.

That is not true. One only has to read what the resistance clerics are preaching:

Father Rua: "We appeal to you to recognize that the visible church is not the Catholic Church. It is the Conciliar Church, the Church of the new Advent as they call themselves."

Fr. Girouard: "Nonetheless, it stands that we are in the presence of two separate institutions: The Catholic Church founded by Our Lord and the conciliar Church, instigated, let there be no doubt, by Lucifer"

Fr. Fuchs: What is meant by “the church”? The Catholic Church as she was founded by Jesus Christ or the post-conciliar church? If it means the Catholic Church then no return is possible because Tradition is an integral part of the Catholic Church; if the post-conciliar church is meant then it is her who left Tradition. Then it is her who has to return to Tradition, not Tradition to the church.

Bp. Williamson: "Various Churches" (EC281)

Quote from: J.Paul

What difference will an agreement make?

It is not so much as coming to an agreement but rather the reason for rejecting one. The society accepts a priori the principle of submiting to the authority of Rome; the fact that it finds itself at the moment unable to do so is secondary. The resistance, however, rejects a priori the authority of Rome.

peterp · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2014, 04:24:42 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
“No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/02/24/no-canonical-agreement-prior-to-a-doctrinal-resolution-is-a-catholic-principle/

This is just a rehash of the "Open Letter to Fr. Themann" with the same fallacies and a reference to Satis Cognitum which doesn't help you. The Church in one, formed through unity of faith and of communion. There are to ways of separating oneself from her (i) by renouncing the faith - heresy, (ii) refusing her authority - schism.

To refuse her authority as a principle is schismatic. This has never been the position of the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre. Hence the quote "let them first make us such an offer!", how could he say such a thing if he refused Rome's authority as a principle?

Please point out where the fallacy is.

These were addressed in the "Open Letter to Fr. Themann" thread. As I wrote above "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was never a principle of the archbishop or the society; you confuse principle and prudence.

Putting aside the Archbishop's position, the thesis of the article is that "no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution" is a Catholic principle. Show me where you disagree.

I already answered this. The Church is one, formed through unity of faith and of communion. There are to ways of separating oneself from her (i) by renouncing the faith - heresy, (ii) refusing her authority - schism.

Hence, the society must, as a principle, want to submit to the authority of Rome - the fact that prudence has prevent her from coming to an agreement is immaterial - she must always want to submit. If ever she does not, she would be no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox. If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle, she would be, by definition, schismatic. And the society have always held this principle: when Rome calls she answers, she has never refuse discussions with Rome.

Hence Fr Simoulin recent atricle "... it is not possible to think that one is in communion with the Church independently of the Pope, acting as though he did not exist, refusing all contact and all dealings with him, and not seeking to establish relations that enable us to accept his jurisdiction while refusing to compromise with his errors. All this is difficult, delicate, risky, and whatever else you want to call it—granted. But not to desire this, or even to reject it a priori, is to reject communion with the Church as she was constituted by Jesus Christ and as she lives in 2014.

And this is what the "no agreement without Rome's conversion" principle is: it rejects a priori the authority of Rome.