Author Topic: No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First (Read 11273 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2014, 06:40:27 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
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.

You indeed do need to get into this argument and resolve it, for who and what would you be agreeing with? And who and what would you be resolving doctrinal issues with?

You can only come to a valid agreement with the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church can resolve doctrinal disputes.

The principle is but an empty shell without the substance of the True Church to infuse meaning into it.

Did you read the article I linked to?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #36 on:** March 01, 2014, 06:42:09 AM »

Quote from: peterp

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.

The article address the authority of the Faith over the authority of the Pope. Read the article and please point out a specific proposition that you have a problem with.

Ekim · « **Reply #37 on:** March 01, 2014, 06:48:44 AM »

Clarkson, the priests holding up the fight of the Archbishop have NEVER (sigh...beating a dead horse) denied the authority of Rome or Francis. Look at the YouTube video posted above or the one of Fr Pfeiffer in Charlotte NC in Jan 2014. If Francis, or any other Bishop invited them to come and speak about the crisis, they would go w/o delay. What they wouldn't do however, is compromise Catholic doctrine in the process.

The "Mass Bastard" can never be on the same level as the True Mass. Let us pray for +Fellay that he once again shouts this from the roof tops as the Archbishop once did.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #38 on:** March 01, 2014, 04:37:27 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: peterp
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.

The article address the authority of the Faith over the authority of the Pope. Read the article and please point out a specific proposition that you have a problem with.

Peterp?

Luker · « **Reply #39 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:24:35 AM »

Quote from: peterp

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, for the record I am not a Resistance member, I assist at a regular SSPX chapel. However I think this assertion of yours is unfair. The Resistance as a whole do NOT reject a priori the authority of Rome. They do believe that in the current situation any agreement is impossible (no agreement on doctrinal principles), but I have never heard them go 'officially' sedevacantist, that is to say, reject out right the current hiearchy in Rome. If you believe this about the Resistance, it is simply untrue, despite your quotes (which are probably taken out of context).

Luke