Author Topic: SSPX mod - We cant have rampant dissent about the Pope (Read 10737 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #10 on:** July 15, 2015, 02:17:52 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Matthew
From the "SSPX Faithful" Facebook group.
Vanessa Dredger is one of the Admins.

Vanessa Dredger
June 20 at 2:30pm · Union, KY

No further posts concerning the Pope's encyclical "Laudato Si" will be allowed on this page until further notice. An exception will be made for any posts on this topic from the SSPX website. This topic has been sufficiently discussed and moderated in previous posts below, which you may read through if you wish to join the conversation. As always, any flippant remarks will be immediately deleted.

Vanessa Dredger: Though your assumption that I have not read the complete encyclical from cover to cover is true: I've only read parts of it. I've been busy curtailing the flagrant dissension over it. I will say at as an admin of this page I have no more restraint in me to keep myself from taking action upon those who cannot follow the rules here. I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained. I will no longer babysit you as you sit and make this situation worse than it needs to be.

What exactly is "rampant" dissent? Lots of people being upset about something?

It's the rampant dissent from the SSPX rank and file...that's her real problem.

Mrs. Dredger is a School Administrator for the SSPX, in Kentucky, and her husband is a Vice Principal. Clearly, they toe the line and regurgitate the talking points from SSPX Corporate.

Another gatekeeper, making safe the ground for the revolution to continue.
Top shelf FSSP/Remnant stuff.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 16, 2015, 09:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

JPaul · « **Reply #12 on:** July 16, 2015, 11:29:17 AM »

This comes down to the point of does this man speak with the authority of, and as the pontiff of, the Catholic Church, or does he speak as himself by the teaching "authority" of the conciliar entity, which in general, has departed from Catholic teaching and doctrine. and is untrustworthy.

Msgr, Fenton's references apply to the first, but, the second situation was not even conceived when these declarations were formulated, so paraphrasing what Father Hesse always said, "until he says something Catholic about Faith or Morals,.....I'm not interested".

BRCatholic · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2015, 12:08:46 PM »

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:"

Why can't theologians use these rules ?

Columba · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2015, 07:06:12 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

[...]

And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis.

I resemble that remark!

Quote from: Matthew

But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.

I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.

What head-in-the-clouds philosophers? Just about every trad of which I am aware believes there is no move which can or should be made in the direction of restoration. Trads agree on almost nothing, but on this one issue, they are strangely unanimous. It has become a de fide tenet of the traddy faith that calls to action are grave error and tantamount to the rejection of prayer. The SSPX, SSPV, and even FSSP all walk in lockstep along with most others. What's to account for this improbably consensus? They have all fallen for the same bluff of invulnerability from a dog who is chained to a stake.

Nobody can know how long the bi-party, progressive establishment, which is highly self-destructive and even suicidal, will continue in power. More importantly, that should not be a primary concern. Instead, the only concern should be whether one is fulfilling his Catholic duty.

It is often said that there is no way to defend the Church today. However, that is only a sleight-of-hand covering the lack will to do so. Once a core Church Militant is reestablished, they will find no shortage of ways to defend the Faith and move toward eventual Church restoration.

Even a lone-wolf, individual Catholic has ways to fight for the Faith, such as by working to reestablish the Church Militant. All that's lacking is the will.