Author Topic: No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First (Read 11264 times)

Graham · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2014, 08:17:10 PM »

Quote from: peterp

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)

Archbishop Lefebvre: "Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church [...]"

Quote from: PeterP

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.

No, we accept that principle. What we, along with Archbishop Lefebvre, deny is that we owe such obedience to Conciliar Rome, the schismatic sect occupying the churches. Please have the decency to temper your arguments accordingly.

Ekim · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2014, 09:07:25 PM »

Holysoulsacademy, please clarify your point regarding superiors and the fear of God. Pardon my ignorance.

clarkaim · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2014, 10:39:15 PM »

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.[/quote]

Really? Sede's do not "a priori" refuse roman authority, or whatever you are trying to claim. They do in fact, so accept the authority of Rome that they cannot grant it to blatant heretics. They don't accept Michael Bowden either, does that make them schismatic? Don't be a boob, they may be incorrect in their conclusions, but they do accept the papacy, so much love for it do they have that they can't accept these obvious fools as holding the office, based on theology. If Obama isn't American by birth, and if he fixed the election, he would be a Usurper, not a legitimate president. How could a heretic be anything less? Just because you have the funny hat and the acclaim of the Jєωιѕн media, how can one be pope if not a Catholic? All this hub bub. Call a spade a spade. The SSPX is co-opted.

bowler · « **Reply #33 on:** March 01, 2014, 05:06:53 AM »

Quote from: clarkaim

Quote
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.

Really? Sede's do not "a priori" refuse roman authority, or whatever you are trying to claim. They do in fact, so accept the authority of Rome that they cannot grant it to blatant heretics. They don't accept Michael Bowden either, does that make them schismatic? Don't be a boob, they may be incorrect in their conclusions, but they do accept the papacy, so much love for it do they have that they can't accept these obvious fools as holding the office, based on theology. If Obama isn't American by birth, and if he fixed the election, he would be a Usurper, not a legitimate president. How could a heretic be anything less? Just because you have the funny hat and the acclaim of the Jєωιѕн media, how can one be pope if not a Catholic? All this hub bub. Call a spade a spade. The SSPX is co-opted.

The Neo SSPX can't say that visible church, the conciliar church, is not the Catholic Church. Just the same as they can't say the new formula for consecrating bishops is invalid. Just as they can't say that Pope Francis may not even be a priests, let alone a bishop. Therefore, they have to invent something to be able to appeal to a greater audience, join the conciliar church and live "in peace" like any other priest in the Novus Ordo. So, they came up with the 2005 article saying that the new rite of consecrating bishops is valid, and Fr. Simoulin's excuse.

It's that simple. They just want to be like the Ecclesia Dei "Latin Mass community" and not be "stigmatized" anymore. "We just want peace".

(Luke 12:34)
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** March 01, 2014, 05:47:45 AM »

.

I find it most noteworthy that there is still so much confusion over this matter.

The unrelenting Modernists keep pushing to relegate doctrine to an exiled status, and this is a Freemasonic principle -- one that they set down hundreds of years ago. At first, it was LAUGHABLE, but that didn't stop them. They were very determined to make it stick, and it is their most prominently non-negotiable principle, outside of which no 'progress' shall be made. Progress toward what? one may well ask -- they have no answer............. just 'progress'...............

Now Bishop Fellay and his cronies have been playing footsie with the idea and uninformed Catholics somehow think it's okay. For example, Michael Voris is currently all gushing over the 'excellent' article some dufus posted on his blog that says basically this, that it's a good idea for the SSPX to set doctrine aside and negotiate 'normalization' without regards to the unchanging character of doctrine.

The sermon by Fr. Jean (this thread OP) is very good, but it looks as though some members have posted on this thread without even reading the OP, or if they did read it, they don't agree with the PRINCIPLE it talks about repeatedly.

.